Attachment 06August 16, 201 7
Mayor Marico Sayoc
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, California 95031
RECEIVED
AUG 1 7 2017
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
RE: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
105 NEWELL A VENUE
APPLICATION NO.: PD-14-002
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLATION ND-16-002
LOT 26, RINCONADA ESTATES
Dear Mayor and Town Council:
This letter is written to impart the extremely important reasons why Lot 26 of the
Rinconada Estates should be approved as a Planned Development with four ( 4) single
family homes placed on the property. The lot is zoned R-1:12 as are the forty-three
homes on Newell Avenue, Newell Court, Elena and Brocastle. The abandoned Elks Club
was under a Conditional Use Permit as are Lots 1, 2. & 3 developed as a Courtside
Parking Lot , both of which are zoned R-1: 12. The La Montagne Court development,
adjacent to Newell Avenue, is also zoned Residential.
On August 9, 2017, the Planning Commission by a vote of 4-2 approved the Application
with conditions and sent it to the Town Council for final approval. In our letter dated
September 21, 2016 (copy enclosed), we addressed the Developer's first attempt to
have the Planning Commission approve the project. We included the Exhibits from our
2001 drive to defeat a request for a zone change by the Elk's Club to build a Medical
Building on Lots 1, 2, 3 followed by an attempt to change the zone of Lot 26 to build
an Elk's Club Retirement Home.
Our goal as a neighborhood is to make Rinconada Estates whole. This can only be
achieved by the approval of this project to keep the R-1:12 zoning with the building of
four (4) single family residential homes as a Planned Development that conforms to the
Rinconada Estates zoning requirement. The following reasons are listed in support of the
approval of a Planned Development on Lot 26 :
1. Town of Los Gatos In-fill Policy. The Development Policy for the Town of
Los Gatos In-Fill Projects states, "In-Fill projects should contribute to the further
development of the surrounding neighborhood .•. eliminate a blighted area, not detract
from the existing quality of life."
ATTACHMENT 6
AUGUST 16 , 2017
PAGE2
Further it "should be de signed in the context of the neighborhood and surrounding
zoning. The project, "should blend rather than compete with the established character
of the area". The Applicant's Planned Development project certainly complies with
those requirements.
2. Spot Zoning, California Real Estate Law. This addresses General Plan and
Zoning Consi stency Standards. The project application for Lot 26 of Rinconda Estates
"will not impair the integrity and character of the zone ... or be detrimental to the public
health, safety, morals or welfare."
3. Town of Los Gatos General Plan. The Plan was crafted to address the
zoning of the area between the west side of Winchester from the 85 exit to south of
Daves A venue. That area, including Rinconada Estates, is zoned re s idential and shall
remain as designated. Section 1.1, General Plan 2000 is absolutely relevant today:
"Los Gatos is a truly special place and residents want to protect their
community ... Residents expect all new development to fit into the fabric of
the community ... minimizing impacts on existing residential neighborhoods."
4. Safety of Residents. The Town of Los Gatos is responsible to provide a
safe environment for its residents. The vacant Elk's Club has become a magnet for
the homeless and possible drug dealings. The residents adjacent to this abandon
property on Newell Court and Newell Avenue have endured a variety of problems.
The recent brush fire on the old Elk's Club property drove home this point. If an alert
neighbor had not raced to the Fire Department pleading for help, the adjacent homes
could have been destroyed. Any abandoned property in the Town of Los Gatos must be
addressed to be assured of the safety of its resident s.
5. Neighborhood Support The neighbors from the initial plans for Lot 26
have played a ro le with their input. We first met with the Applicant at the Elk's Club
to review the initial plans in the spring of20 14 . At that meeting, the neighbors were in
full support of building four ( 4) single family homes using the Planned Development
process. The Applicant has kept us updated on the progress through a series of e-mails
(EXHIBIT 1). In 2001 , the neighborhoods ofRinconada Estates, La Montagne Court,
and Charter Oaks banded together to prevent a zone change from Residential to Office
(EXHIBIT A). We will continue our efforts to insure that Lot 26 remains zoned R -1 : 12.
6. Traffic. The traffic in our area has become a nightmare that has effected
a ll residents of the La Rincanada's "quality of life". It has gotten so bad, that trips
out of the immediate area must be planned around the 4 to 6 P .M . commuter traffic
and the unbelievable 'beach traffic on Saturdays and Sundays. The Netflex compl ex,
Courtside, commuters, and the expansion of Santa Clara County as the nation's hub of
technology, all hav e contributed to an incredible, massive traffic problem. The Town
Council must understand that the only development of Lot 26 should be limited to four
AUGUST 16 , 2017
PAGE3
single family homes. The suggestion of re-zoning Lot 26 to office, town homes/
condominiums, is not a realistic option.
7. Conforming to the Neighborhood. It was suggested at the Planning
Commission Hearing that the proposed homes for Lot 26 were too large for the
surrounding neighborhood. We absolutely take offense with this statement. The
residents of Rinconada Estates take great pride in their homes. Most all of them have
been remodeled to include expansion of square footage of well over 3,000 square feet,
which is certainly within the range of the square footage of the Applicant's proposed
residences. The homes on La Montagne Court back up to Newell A venue homes and
should be considered part of the neighborhood. In addition, the Applicant has reduced
the proposed home size by 2300 square feet to abet the Planning Department's
recommendation.
8. Hillside Policy. Rinconada Estates and La Montagne Court are built on a
hill as is most of the La Rinconada area. The major issue brought up by the that has
limited the approval of this project is the strict interpretation of the Town of Los Gatos
Hillside Policy. The Applicant has gone the extra mile to revi se the plans in order to
reduce the slope allowing the project to be within the Hillside Policy. We request that
the Council Members look at Brocastle, La Montagne, and La Rinconada to observe far
greater slopes than are on Lot 26. It should be noted that the La Montagne Court homes
were constructed without a grading permit (a dark day for the Town of Los Gatos
Planning Department). That construction destroyed view lots on Newell A venue.
The Applicant, Camargo & Associates Architects, have spent countless hours
working with numerous Project Planners for over three (3) years to redesign the initial
plans to conform with the Planning Department's Regulations. It is not fair to the
Applicant and Riconada Estate 's residents to continue keeping this project in a state of
limbo. The Planned Development Application on Lot 26 ofRinconada Estates must be
approved.
If you have any questions or need additional clarification, we would be more that happy
to address those concerns.
ft/£~~~~
William and Ann Bums
140 Newell Avenue
Los Gatos
Encl.
CC: Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
September 21 , 2016
Los Gatos Town Council
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, California 95030
RE: PLANNED DEVELOLPMENT
APPLICATION
NUMBER PD-14-002
LA RINCONADA ESTATES
LOT NUMBER 26
105 NEWELL A VENUE
Dear Members of the Town Council and Planning Commis sion:
After attending the Planning Commi ssion Hearing on Wednesday, September 14 , 2016,
it was made clear that after fifteen years of fighting to maintain our neighborhood that
nothing in the Town of Los Gatos has changed. We finally got a developer to build
four (4) custom homes on the E lk s Club property that will be zoned residential and
to comply with the surrounding forty-three homes zoned R-1.
The Planning Commission Meeting was extremely disturbing. It was obvious that the
numerous Project Planners had not done their homework and did not lo ok at the files
of Lot 26, 105 Newell A venue. The final straw that night was when a Commissioner
suggested that Offices be placed on that property. We immediately went back to our files
and present to you EXHIBIT A.
In the year 2001 , a proposed Medical Office Building was proposed for Lots 1, 2 , and 3.
The Town Council rejected that proposal and cited the Spot Zoning provision of
the California Real Estate Laws. What was relev ant in 2001 remains relevant today.
We worked with the Council in an attempt to place custom homes on Lot s 2 and 3 with
green space proposed for Lot 1. That idea was not accepted and the Elks sold the
property to Courtside for an additional parking lot which seemed to be the only
alternative.
At the Hearing, the Developer was asked to respond to a series of questions. His answers
did not meet the pre-conceived expectations of the Commission and the Developer was
required to respond at a new Hearing scheduled for December 7, 2016. In the interim,
our neighborhood if forced to looks at orange netting and an empty building.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2016
PAGE2
Enclosed in EXHIBIT A is an outstanding evaluation of the problems associated with the
various attempts to change zoning from R to 0 written by Jack Aiello on May 27, 2001.
Mr. Aiello was a developer with the Due Corporation and recently passed away. Over
the years he had been the leader in trying to protect the La Rinconda Estates
neighborhood. Protecting our neighbor has been an on going fight. In the late l 990's
more that 4,000 residents of the Town of Los Gatos united in order to stop PG&E from
building a natural gas service station on the town lot located at Lark and Winchester
(Goodwill) lot. The next actions taken by the residence was to stop a Skate Board Park
from being built on the town lot (EXHIBIT B). The attempt to underground 230 KV
wires through Courtside was blocked by the Town Council and PG&E. Finally, we kept
the Elk's Club from placing a Retirement Home on their property.
We purchased our home forty -six years ago with the expectation of enjoying a quiet and
safe neighbor in which to bring up our two children and enjoy a "Quality of Life" in the
Town of Los Gatos. The approval of the plan for construction of four (4) custom
homes in the existing residential neighborhood will in sure this becomes a reality.
Your attention to the information that ha s been presented will hopefully, aid in your
decision to approve the project based on the wi shes of the La Rinconda residents rather
those living outside of the area.
Sincerely,
William & Ann Burns
140 Newell A venue
Los Gatos
Subj :
Date:
From :
To:
EXHIBIT 1
Elks Development update+ more
6/23/2014 8:53:05 AM. Pacific Dayl ight Time
mikefriesen@live .com
wwburnslaw@aol.com , ric kl potter@gma il.com , rk@kaneko insurance.com,
bruceaharrison@comcast.net, hy119@comcast.net, dalem illerlg@comcast.net,
bridgetm19@comcast.net, bperbst1962@hotmail.com, pega135@ comcast.net ,
max perlmanddi@msn.com , toby@aerospike.com , kfparsi@gmail.com
CC : maurice@camargo.com, mikefriesen@li ve.com
Hello Neighbors,
Page 1 of 1
I thought I would provide you a quick update on where we stand on timing as well as fill you
guys in on a conversation we had with our town planner.
I looks like we will be submitting our first package, (DRC) Development Review Committee this
week which is a substantial milestone for the project. After the advisory committee this will be
our fist time to actually receive feedback and instruction on the proposed development. It also
turns out to be good timing as it looks like the Council, or at least a few of them, is throwing
around the idea of all but abolishing Planned Unit Developments (PUD's). Which brings me to
the conversation Maurice had with our planner.
The planner has advised us to become more involved in Council & Planning meetings, both
developers and surrounding neighbors. We need to voice our concerns regarding changing the
PUD process and more specifically how this would effect you and your neighbo rhood. After
speaking with Maurice I have been informed that without this PUD process not much could be
developed on this parcel as it is zoned. Maybe 2 large homesite, which would not be consistent
to the community or be economical to develop. From what I have been able to find out the
Council has created a committee to study and report on PUD's. I believe this committee has
reported and the subject has now been handed off to the Planning Commission.
I will be attending this Wednesday's Planning Commission meeting . While the agenda does not
specifically state they are going to discuss PUD's it does say they are reviewing a Project that
is using the PUD process. Maybe I can glean some insight based on their discussi on.
Please feel free to contact Maurice or myself if you have any questions or need more
information on PUD's .
Maurice Camargo ( 408) 489-1077
Regards,
Mike Friesen
(916) 69 0-644 3
Monday , June 23, 20 14 AOL : WWBurnsLaw
EXHIBIT A
l\1EMORANDUM
TO: GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE
TOWN OFF LOS GATOS COUNCIL
DEBRA FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
FROM: LA RINCONADA RESIDENTS
RE: RINCONADA ESTATES LOTS 1, 2, 3, & 26
[PROPOSED] ZONE CHANGE
RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE'
MODIFICATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN 2000 &
DEVELOPMENT POLICY FOR IN-FILL PROJECTS
At the last General Plan Committee, the residents were directed to submit plans for
residential development of Lots 1 and 3 ofRinconada Estates and to meet with the Elk to
reach a compromise that would benefit all parties without changing the General Plan
2000 or In-fill Policy. To that end, we have enclosed two (2) plans for development of
Lots 1 and 3 currently owned by the Elk as well as the previously submitted plan for Lot
26 (a cul de sac with 4 or 5 homes facing north/south). On Monday, November 19th,
the residents met with Bill Quigley and developer Roger Griffin to discuss residential
development. The Elk, however, will not budge on its plan to construct a medical/office
building on Lot 3 with parking proposed for Lot 1. Bill Quigley reiterated his goal to
"make the most income from his property". In addition, he addressed future plan for
rezoning Lot 26 from residential to 'office'. We are particularly concerned with
[proposed] plan for Lot 26 which would be the construction of a Managed Care
Facility/Retirement Home for Elks residing throughout Northern California (similar to
the facility owned by the Elk in the State of Virginia).
The packet of material ~ubmitted for your review prior to the General Plan Meeting on
November 28th in an attempt to present a realistic view of major problems resulting from
the approval of a zone change in the established residential neighborhood of Rinconada
Estates. The most effective document, is the aerial view of the area which graphically
illustrates the General Plan 2000 wherein property on the west side of Winchester from
the 85 exit to south of Daves Avenue is zoned 'Residential'. The residential area on the
east side of Winchester from the Fire Station to Daves is also clearly marked.
The General Plan 2000 was crafted over a period of three (3) years. During that time, the
Task Force menibers designated to evaluate La Rinconda went over the zoning
(residential) and made the recommendation that the area remain as designated. It is
our strong belief that the General Plan must not be changed in order to accommodate a
'special interest group'. The residents or the Town does not have a 'duty' to provide
income for the Elk. If that organization is interested in building a Managed Care
Facility utilizing income from an medical/office building to pay for such an operation,
may we strongly recommend either developing its property with homes which could be
sold or rented. The profits from development could then be used to locate in an area with
enough acreage to accommodate such a facility. Lark at Winchester Boulevard, in the
middle of Silicon Valley, is not that location.
The residents of La Rinconda have taken a lot of criticism in our continued effort to
protect the neighborhoods. We would respectfully request that the General Plan
Committee and Town Council review our concerns before making a decision to
accommodate a special interest group or a developer whose only intention is to make a
profit. After the developer or special interest group has moved on, the neighborhoods
are left to inherit a 'quality of life, that has been drastically reduced. We strongly
urge you to follow the vision for Los Gatos as expressed in the General Plan 2000:
"Los Gatos is a truly special place and residents want to protect their
community from ~e increasing development pressures of the region.
Residents expect all new development to fit into the fabric of the
community ... extreme care must be used in approving all new
development applications ••• minimizing impacts on existing residential
neighborhoods. Support of new development from surrounding
residents and property owners will be a major consideration during any
development review process."
Section 1.1-General Plan 2000
We have submitted herewith the signature of residents representing Rinconada
Estates, Wimbledom Estates, Winchester Residential area, and Charter Oaks,
stating their stron& opposition to a change of zoning/modification of the General
Plan 2000. To allow a special Interest Group to go against the wishes of the
residents will set a very dangerous precedent for the entire Town of Los Gatos.
The neighborhoods comprise the heart and soul of this Town. They must be
supported and their integrity maintained.
Finally, we urge you to ~eview the RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT POLICY
FOR IN-FILL PROJECTS dated May 3, 1993:
" In-fill projects should contribute to the further development of the
surrounding neighborhoods ... contribute to or provide neighborhood
unity, eliminate a blighted area, not detract from the existing quality
of life. An in-fill project should be designed in context with the
neighborhood and surrounding zoning ••• "
The in-fill project ofWimbledom Estates (La Montagne Court) adjacent to the Newell
Avenue residential area is an outstanding example of the Town's In-fill Policy wherein
custom homes were built rather than offices. The residents of La Rinconada look
forWard to welcoming another similar in-fill project (homes) to our neighborhood.
RESOLUTION i993-62
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
-OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ADOPTING A :PEVELOP~NT POLICY FOR IN-FILL PROJECTS
WHEREAS~ the Town is primarily bw1t out and the balance of undeveloped land
consists predominantly of in-fill p~cels; and
WHEREAS, it is important that these in-fill parcels are development companole with
surrounding neighborhoods .
. RESOLVED: ~e Town Council ·hereby adopts a development policy for in-fill
projects attached to· this resolution as E:<hibit A.
PASSED AND ADO~D at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the
3rd day of May, 1993, by the following vote:.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
A YES: Randy Attaway, Steven Blanton.. Linda Lubeck, Patrick O'Laugblin,
Mayor Joanne Benjamin
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:
ATTEST:
/s/ Marian V. Cosgrove
/s/ Joanne Benjamin
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
·. ·CLERK OF 1HE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
Cll\R£SOS\tN·ft~~
DEVELOPMENT POLICY FOR IN-FILL PROJECTS
1. In-fill projects should contribute to the further development of the surrounding
neighborhood (i.e. improve circulation, contribute to or provide neighborhood unity,
eUmlnate a blighted area; not detract from the existing quality of life).
2. An in-fill project should be designed in context with the neighborhood and
surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding
structures,. provide comparable lot sizes and open space, consider garage
placement, setbacks, density, provide adequate circulation and on-street parking.
In-fill development should blend rather than compete with the established character
of the area
3. Corridor. lots may be considered if it decreases the amount of public street and is
consistent with objects #1 and #2. It must be demonstrated that a benefit to
surrounding properties is being provided .
. 4. The Planned Development process .should only be used to accomplish objects #1
and #2. The applicant shall demonstrate the benefit of a Planned Development
through excelf ence in design.
5. Approval of an in·ffll project shall demonstrate a strong community benefit and
findings of benefit shall be part of the record . ·
6. Recommend that any new development proposal be reviewed by the Conceptual
Development Advisory Committee.
C:S2\HISC\Ill·FII.L
~XHiBIT A
z
"' E
"' r-r
•
•
.. ..
I
--~ .:..,_ . ,..,, •o 'J '(;
-------,,,,, c:.: .:.· ~ 1i·1
• h 1 ~~
4't ....... , 9.uN· ~ . .,, ~ ... ~ . -__ .!!UI--. \ • ... I ~
i qJS'l(M CUS'I0-1 "'--, .•
> <
HCH: \ HCHE /~
~ ' 26;.J \ 26-2 I ...
. ,.,
-·-.!!'..!'-- -I aJ9'J:a.i . Ba-1E •
RINCONADAESTATES ····-. -·:.-.-_
ELKSt~r:bB JJPLiC.AfiON
WNE CHANGE & MODIFICATION OF
G~NERAL PLAN
LOTS 1, 2, 3, & 26-RINCONADA ESTATES
ZONED RESIDENTIAL
. ..
-~·--
.,. t
TO: MAYOR JOSEPH PIRZYNSKI
TOWN OF LOS GATOS COUNCIL
DEBRA FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
FROM: THE RESIDENTS
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
RE: RJNCONADA ESTATES, LOTS J, 2, 3, & 26
LARK@ WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
{PROPOSED/ ZONE CHANGE FROM
RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE'
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS,
STRONGLY OPPOSE THE [PROPOSED) ZONE CHANGE OF RINCON ADA
ESTATES' LOTS I, 2, 3, & 26 FROM 'R'-RESIDENTIAL TO '0'-OFFICE.
TO CH&~GE THE ZONING IN AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL
1''ElGHBORHOOD FROJ\f RESIDENTIAL 1;'0 'OFFICE' AA'D MODIFY THE
'GENERAL PLAN' TO ACCOMMODATE A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
[ELKS CLUllJ WOULD BE SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
EFFECTING ALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF nus TOWN. THE COUNCIL
MUST REALIZE THAT APPROVAL OF AN 'OFFICE' ZONING IN RINCONDA
ESTATES WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT TRAFFIC, PROPERTY VALUES,
SAFETY, PARK.LNG, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE WITHIN THE AREA. ·
REFER TO THE CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE LAW REGARDING 'SPOT
ZONING, IN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. ·
I Cf O A.//J( "~ tf ~ -e (. (;.
!Yo~~U/0·
/ {) Y )'3/UJc~rzE tJ/111
1'17 l/£klfi-Ll A J/E,
.~ .I Ir ·w ·
TO: MAYOR JOSEPH PIRENSKI
TOWN OF LOS GATOS COUNCIL
DEBRA FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
FROM: THE RESIDENTS
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
RE: RINCONADA ESTATES, LOTS J, 2, 3, & 26
LARK@ WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
[PROPOSED] ZONE CHANGE FROM
RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE'
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS,
STRONGLY OPPOSE THE [PROPOSED) ZONE CHANGE OF RINCON ADA
ESTATES' LOTS 1, 2, 3, & 26 FROM 'R'-RESIDENTIAL TO '0'-OFFICE.
TO CHANGE THE ZONING IN AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD FROM RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE' AND MODIFY THE
'GENERAL PLAN' TO ACCOMMODATE A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
[ELKS CLUB] WOULD BE SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECENDENT
EFFECTING ALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF THIS TOWN. THE COUNCIL
MUS T REALIZE TBA T APPROVAL OF AN 'OFFI CE' ZONING I N RINCONDA
ESTATES WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT TRAFFIC, PROPERTY VALUES,
SAFETY, PARKING, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE WITHIN OUR AREA.
REFER TO THE CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE LAW REGARDING 'SPOT
ZONING' IN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
/ 1s-Neu..;eJ!i 61-Lo;.~ 9 s-03 2-
/ t,/ hJo,u~ (~± h fubs 9 66 3~
\j) tJ e weJ{ e f i_o ~ G-LC(D S °t $ 0 3 'iv
13{ Me-rJU£ el.. L .~r qros L-
/19 J/rLwdP a & ~ 7JtJ J L
II~ 11.w JtlQ , tt, ~ ~ C/-:J03~
/~1 ~ AJte., ~ 6it/W~Z
161 ~ ~ .elm 6tAs 7$32
TO: MAYOR JOSEPH PIRENSKI
TOWN OF LOS GATOS COUNCIL
DEBRA F I GONE, TOWN MANAGER
FROM: THE RESIDENTS
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
RE: RINCONADA ESTATES. LOTS 1. 2, 3, & 26
LARK@ WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
[PROPOSED] ZONE CHANGE FROM
RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE'
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS,
STRONGLY OPPOSE THE [PROPOSED] ZONE CHANGE OF RINCONADA
ESTATES' LOTS 1, 2, 3, & 26 FROM 'R'-RESIDENTIAL TO '0'-0FFICE.
TO CHANGE THE ZONING IN AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD FROM RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE' AND MODIFY THE
'GENERAL PLAN' TO ACCOMMODATE A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
(ELKS CLUB] WOULD BE SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
EFFECTING ALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF THIS TOWN. THE COUNC IL
MUST REALIZE THAT APPROVAL OF AN 'OFFICE' ZONING IN RINCONDA
ESTATES WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT TRAFFIC, PROPERTY VALUES,
SAFETY, PARKING, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE WITHIN THE AREA.
REFER TO THE CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE LAW REGARDING 'SPOT
ZONING' IN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
TO: MAYOR JOSEPH PIRENSKI
TOWN OF LOS GATOS COUNCIL
DEBRA FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
FROM: THE RESIDENTS
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
RE: RINCONADA ESTATES, LOTS J, 2, 3, & 26
LARK@ WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
[PROPOSED} ZONE CHANGE FROM
RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE'
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS,
STRONGLY OPPOSE THE [PROPOSED] ZONE CHANGE OF RINCONADA
ESTATES' LOTS 1, 2, 3, & 26 FROM 'R'-RESIDENTIAL TO '0'-OFFICE.
TO CHANGE THE ZONING IN AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD FROM RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE' AND MODIFY THE
'GENERAL PLAN' TO ACCOMMODATE A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
[ELKS CLUB] WOULD BE SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
EFFECTING ALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF THIS TOWN. THE COUNCIL
MUST REALIZE THAT APPROVAL OF AN 'OFFICE' ZONING IN RINCONDA
ESTATES WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT TRAFFIC, PROPERTY VALUES,
SAFETY, PARKING, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE WITHIN THE AREA.
REFER TO THE CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE LAW REGARDING 'SPOT
ZONING' IN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
'~ 3 t.jtMJJ~ ~ . l s .
i I :;-~e_v0J \ a L.os Grd6$
I 7 t tJ Ev.) &L L.. f!#ti L ~ s ~ lt71J..!
({3 USJ.J£L<_ ~ ~~ATC~
/tJ8 ~ . .bs611i"<rs-
ISC; /\)eve LL fµ.J/lDiCnJg
,,$ N~ h;e. L-6--
TO: MAYOR JOSEPH PIRENSKI
TOWN OF LOS GATOS COUNCIL
DEBRA FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
FROM: THE RESIDENTS
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
RE: RINCONADA ESTATES. LOTS J, 2, 3, & 26
LARK@ WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
/PROPOSED] ZONE CHANGE FROM
RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE'
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS,
STRONGLY OPPOSE THE [PROPOSED] ZONE CHANGE OF RINCONADA
ESTATES' LOTS 1, 2, 3, & 26 FROM 'R'-RESIDENTIAL TO '0'-OFFICE.
TO CHANGE THE ZONING IN AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD FROM RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE' AND MODIFY THE
'GENERAL PLAN' TO ACCOMMODATE A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
[ELKS CLUB] WOULD BE SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
EFFECTING ALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIDS TOWN. THE COUNCIL .
MUST REALIZE THAT APPROVAL OF AN 'OFFICE' ZONING IN RINCONDA
ESTATES WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT TRAFFIC, PROPERTY VALUES,
SAFETY, PARKING, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE WITIDN THE AREA.
REFER TO THE CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE LAW REGARDING 'SPOT
ZONING' IN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
~~~~c ==t ..::::_C\.:::::::~:......=::.=IS=--· _ l5~ f-.{~l04E .lL Aoc_ L, (_")
~Lt4!=:::::;;;:::===:::;::;;;--,?ii: ,4Jme/) ?#If · LG .
.(-=.µ.~~~~~--/Jd: .~~&'£ A:&.
H1 ;J~ Arte . J, 6-
v~~~~~~~~Q.
; 7
11sll~~
TO: MAYOR JOSEPH PIRENSKI
TOWN OF LOS GATOS COUNCIL
DEBRA FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
FROM: THE RESIDENTS
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
RE: RINCONADA ESTATES. LOTS J, 2, 3, & 26
LARK@ WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
{PROPOSED] ZONE CHANGE FROM
RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE'
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS,
STRONGLY OPPOSE THE [PROPOSED] ZONE CHANGE OF RINCON ADA
ESTATES' LOTS 1, 2, 3, & 26 FROM 'R'-RESIDENTIAL TO '0'-OFFICE.
TO CHANGE THE ZONING IN AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD FROM RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE' AND MODIFY THE
'GENERAL PLAN' TO ACCOMMODATE A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
[ELKS CLUB] WOULD BE SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
EFFEE;:T~G ALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TIDS TOWN. THE COUNCIL
MUST REALIZE THAT APPROVAL OF AN 'OFFICE' ZONING IN RINCONDA
ESTATES WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT TRAFFIC, PROPERTY VALUES,
SAFETY, PARKING, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE WITHIN THE AREA.
REFER TO THE CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE LAW REGARDING 'SPOT
ZONING' IN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
TO: MAYOR JOSEPH PIRENSKI
TOWN OF LOS GATOS COUNCIL
DEBRA FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
FROM: THE RESIDENTS
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
RE: RINCONADA ESTATES. LOTS J, 2, 3, & 26
LARK@ WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
[PROPOSED] ZONE CHANGE FROM
RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE'
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS,
STRONGLY OPPOSE THE [PROPOSED] ZONE CHANGE OF RINCON ADA
ESTATES' LOTS 1, 2, 3, & 26 FROM 'R'-RESIDENTIAL TO '0'-OFFICE.
TO CHANGE THE ZONING IN AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD FROM RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE' AND MODIFY THE
'GENERAL PLAN' TO ACCOMMODATE A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
(ELKS CLUB] WOULD BE SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
EFFECTING ALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF THIS TOWN. THE COUNCIL
MUST REALIZE THAT APPROVAL OF AN 'OFFICE' ZONING IN RINCONDA
ESTATES WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT TRAFFIC, PROPERTY VALUES ,
SAFETY, PARKING, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE WITHIN THE AREA.
REFER TO THE CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE LAW REGARDING 'SPOT
ZONING' IN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
17/ N.fA.<JeJI /Jve ., l.tJs <libs
{CJ'6J{;.ljep;jb ~er-> ~ ~
( {;i-() I I
_//
TO: MAYOR JOSEPH PIRZYNSKI
TOWN OF LOS GATOS COUNCIL
DEBRA FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
FROM: THE RESIDENTS
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
RE: RINCONADA ESTATES. LOTS 1. 2. 3. ·& 26
LARK@ WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
{PROPOSED} ZONE CHANGE FROM
RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE'
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS,
STRONGLY OPPOSE THE (PROPOSED] ZONE CHANGE OF RINCON ADA
ESTATES' LOTS 1, 2, 3, & 26 FROM 'R'-RESIDENTIAL TO '0'-OFFICE.
In!!
· I Ii ; : f1 .
TO CHANGE THE ZONING IN AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD FROM $SIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE' AND MODIFY THE
'GENERAL PLAN' TO ACCO MM ODA TE A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
[ELKS CLUB] WOULD BE SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
EFFECTING ALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF THIS TOWN. THE COUNCIL
MUST REALIZE THAT APPROVAL OF AN '0FF1CE' ZONING IN RINCONDA
ESTATES WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT TRAFFIC, PROPERTY VALUES,
SAFETY, PARKING, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE WITHIN THE AREA.
'
REFER TO THE CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE LAW REGARDING 'SPOT
ZONING' IN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
~ -1-ZL, ~.. ~ /r. tt~o.;"'~ fo<JJ ~ ~ f ~ /!ury. f g7 L,, )jz,,,,f.?:wz~
~~aMdfieef_~-~~
. . r If I IA 411'VJlffrPE cz;
/f 2 tA /J~N?7( (;..;e-a-. h,r~.
-~""'"'·/. '(J l-4 /vt-ov~.v'~ ·c 1, . ·
~~_._-w.~;;;;_-'--~~-+<1---
~~~.;...:....;..,.~~=d' e.--n5 4 .47 a £,..~
TO: MAYOR JOSEPH PIRZYNSKI
TOWN'OF LOS GATOS COUNCIL
DEBRA FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER ................... )
fni : ;,~I,
FROM: THE RESIDENTS
TOWN'OFUlS'GATOS
~-~:-~·· ---l
TOWN Of LOS GA TQ S
OHltf OF TC'W N CL : ~
RE: RINCONA.DA ESTATES. LOTS J, 2. 3. & 26
URK..@1'e(cl!iBSFBtMJUU:PMW
fPJii1P:(JsEDj zoim 'c1L4NGE FROM
RES111ENTIAL TO 'OFFICE'
----·------.. ··------·-·
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESQ>ENTS OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS; ·
STRlJNGLY O.P:PiBEl'HE (PROPQSEDJ ZONI; CHANGE OF RINCONADA
ESTA~''LOT8~1, 2, 3, & 26 FROM ~R'-RESIDENTIAL TO '0'-OFFICE.
TO CHANGE ·TllE zONING IN AN ·ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL
NEIG~imoOB FROM RESIDENTIAL TO 'OFFICE' AND MODIFY THE 'GENERAt~,: TCl ACCOMMODATE A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
~~ ·CitJl,lj wOULD BE. SETnNG A DANGEROUS 'PRECEDENT
~C'.m,lGALL R.ESIDENTIAL ·~OF THIS_ TOWN. THE COUNCIL
MUST· REALIZE' THAT APPROVAL or AN 'OFFICE' ZONING 'IN RINCONDA
ESTATES WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT. TitAFFic, PROPERTY VALUES,
SAFETY, PARKING, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE WITHIN THE AREA.
REFER TO THE CALIFQRNIA. REAL ESTATE LAW REGARDING 'SPOT
ZO . ' · 'IN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
~~---=~~~--'--l.lD il11111o1rL116P&t;1 Lt; If XJov
-.u.,,~~~..:......:::;~~~.+--,..;=-l,,U, PR l \l@A f..ri.. \.'S l --(A/ l..68 6sKr 1{D "SC
~-~~~~~7l~',L/~ //.J._ /bvt<d4k1~tb; h~4~~ f5°D:. I J ,,,,__~~'..&f-'~---~1.:..:..:111..::.:in;..;;..;al/-;.__ 11 l f? > vo.rk Luisl-6 ) Los ~~s,& q503()
( 0 2 r iwcJ.a.-~~ lvs 6;;t,, s; c.A tl f6So
/Od._ PrMk~. L~~ Cl\ 'J<;oJo
l ~ z_ / 1 ( Q"' 'L ~ cf\ ~ y...t a, -"T'" _ J (fw.rr ( /<-Ji q J e .I
\ 5 2---7 I f o aL.k. P-J'j qe.. cva.._ . · L~ ~J -5 . c . c ~.n-V\L\
~Am4 11110 ~~ Jrb .
~ ~ 17170 ~tt--Vkla.>1t}f, ~ /~I
---=~\~ B~L~rn~J1~~. lGa~ ~-f)_~/115"0 ~YJ4«:r. ~~
A,...,,, ./A-~~/1t~o Bue.JA "::f._1~t1{l4v'. ~ G,
\l lNfl>J?1Vt,~elL--, o 1 M 1 itR.Jc:/{ ~ L6 1>D1 o
fV o·/ ~ ,llv-1~'-i]B "'G-9/o?O
~~~~~--l7H£"" Bu fu>e ul5ITP !fvi.
I Pl~ f7JJ. WJQOl~ les~ SB)3o
)(+f::,,...~;....__::.,._-+--~..::__-
~~~~---f/2-l=yo ~! V,(r.,t.-j~u.ffiL q~~
\lo. )/\4, ~ 112 60 Bue rue. Ui~~ f.a,, U&r;,aitx '15030
~~~~~~-f7K~1 ~k~L.t,~ ,,.,."3 "
/7;Aji '/5~4 (~./-z.., 95030
~~~~~-1110 ~~!JN, r;sz;~
I Vi 1 ~ /Ls/g_,/rlrA_ ~~a
\ -i 1~ \ B ll.Rf\°' v ,·st°' i\R Cf 0.3u
11 \ b? fue.vv'\. \) \ STd! Av 'L C\:x:)"'~D
\1\,lo,( ~~(\ J l ~~ ~ 9 ~O~v
I Sd.8 o Ouc_ ~·~.t.J~" C/JO~ ·
[$dSI ~ ~ 9so io
============== ~ /)'l-JJ{;/;)Ai~,i1Jt1os,>~ 9>'0Jo
May 16, 2001
Mayor Joseph Pi:renski
Town of Los Gatos Council
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Dear Mayor Pirenski:
The Board of Charter Oaks voted today to oppose remning and General PJan -~·
Amendment for the northwest comer ofNewell Avenue and Wmchester Blvd. Our
objections are as follows :
• Traffic on Wmchester and especially Lark is very heavy particularly during commute
hours. Our residents have bad clifficuhy getting out of the complex and making a left
turn onto Lark. Because of the downturn in the economy, traffic has lightened, but the
egress from the complex is still difficuh during certain times of the day. Additional
traffic from a commercial building will, in our opinion, only exacerbate om traffic
problems.
• Per the application, the property is currently zoned R-1:8 and R-1:12. Homeowners
in the neighborhood relied on that zoning when they purchased homes in the area We
have had experience with trying to zone down with the P.G. & E. site and know from
experience that once land is zoned to commercial or industrial it is nearly impoSSI'ble to ·
rezone to residential. We ask you to retain the current zoning.
• We do not believe the General Plan should be modified except under the most unusual
circumstances. Accommodation of a property owner does not fit this criteria. Two of
our homeowners served on the General Plan committee for a year each. The
understanding they had and brought back to the association, was compromises were
necessary, but the final General Plan would stand as approved with as few alterations
as possible .
• The· SUITounding property is residential, the Rinconada Estates, Lost 1-,2,3 and 26
should remain residential.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Charter Oaks Board of Directors
Jacks. Aiello 135 Newell Court
Los Gatos . CA 95032
May 27, 2001
The T <Mn of Los Gatos is about to engage in a dangerous policy of using "spcX zoning" for the benefit
of special intetests. It's a dangerous action that could set a precedent that wit lead to despoiting the
quality of some of the Town's most attractive reside Ilia areas.
The immediate issue involves a request by the Elks Oub to change Residential (R-1) zoning to Office
Zoning for tY«> lots adjoining a residential area near the intersection of Lark Avenue and Winchester
Avenue.
This is not the first time the Elks Club has approached the Town of Los Gatos to request a change in
zoning. The property is zoned R-1 . but in 1962 the Elks Oub received a conditional° use permit that
affaNed it to build a "dub, lodge, hall, or fraternal organization.· The last time the Elks Oub p1 oposed a
change to Office Zoning for this property was in 1982. Their request was rejected becal ise the ta.Ml
council realized that the change in zoning v.ould be destructive to the residential character of the
neighborhood .
Nothing has changed since 1982.
1. The Elks Club and its property adjoin an area of single-story housing. It is a quiet family
residential neighborhood.
2. The Elks Club has been disruptive to the community, causing congestion and complaints from
neighbors. Safety issues raised by this traffic were kept to a minimum by the overflOYI parking
on the hw overflow parking lots adjoining its dub. These lots will rON be converted into office
buildings, so any future events at the dub wll create even more congestion, including part<ing
on residential streets, traffic in residential areas v.ith related safety risks, and further complaints
from neighbors.
3. The adcfrtion of the proposed tv.o-story, 7,700+ square foot office monstrosity Wth its ongoing
higher traffic flows wit increase disruption within the local community.
4 . The property the Elks aub proposes to develop cunentty serves as a buffer zone for the
Newell Avenue residential neighborhood. A change to Office Zoning v.ould bring the traffic into
the residential area. making it a far less desirable place to live.
5. Traffic on Winchester and un is already heavy during peak commuting hours. Adding office
facilities wll increase this already overv.tielming traffic and will encourage travel on residential
straets rather than on main stree4s.
6. A tv.o-story officelmedic:al building is inconsistent with the surrounding single-story residential
areas and is inconsistent~ Town Planning for this area.
e Page2 May27, 2001
The proposed change from R-1 to Office Zoning for the Elks Club property is inconsistent 'Mth the
overall development plan for the la Rinconada area and the T C1Ml of Los Gatos. Spot zoning is, in
general, a mistake. When spot zoning is used to change town development plans, the deciSion to use
spot zoning should be <X>nSidered v.flhin the TC1Ml 's overall traffic, environmental, and commercial
development plan -'Mth particular oonsideration for the impact on the local neighborhood.
Bri~ing Office Zoning into a residential neighborhood should be done only when the change increases
the welfare of the tCM'l'l and the neighborhood. In this instance, the impact on the local neighborhood
v.ould be detrimental. The impact on the TOYtfl overall v.ould be detrimental. The TC1Ml, for instance,
faces unspecified costs related to the traffic geneiated by the office buildings, as 'M!ll as declining
property values in SlMTOUnding residential areas and increased services of all kinds to support the office
buildings and their visitors.
The only positive impact ....;ir be felt by the Elks Club, Y.tlich .,.;11 convert its overflow parking lots into
money generating office buildings.
We can't see any circumstances under which this change from R-1 to 0 Zoning would benefit the
neighborhood and the tCM'l'l as a \\tlole. The pioposed change is a mistake that .,.;n severely damage
the quality of life fa-Town of Los Gatos citizens, increase service costs for the tC1Ml, raise local pollution
due to incieased auto traffic, and cause additional traffic congestion in the Lark AvenuelWinchestel
Avenue area.
We think it is a mistake for the Town to approve the proposed zoning change and the relating
developments. We think it is also a dangerous precedent for other areas of the TCMfl of Los Gatos,
Y.tlich could face similar spot zoning changes that v.ould reduce the desirability of those areas-should
this zoning change pass.
Sincerely ,
Jennifer Armer
On Aug 17 , 2017 , at 2:34 PM, Dale Miller <DaleMillerLG@ comcast.net> wrote:
Council Members,
I am a neighbor of the old Elks Lodge Property at 105 Newell Ave for the past 19 years. My house abuts lot 1
of the proposed development. I have been infonned with regular emails and meetings by the developer and
architect of the proposed project for a private road and 4 new homes to built on this site. The developer and
architect have taken the time to meet with us several times to hear our neighborhood concerns and make
appropriate changes addressing our concerns. I have attended all the planning commission meetings (and voiced
my approval of the project) regarding this property and fully support the proposed development of 4 - 2 story
houses with a private road on this "difficult to build" hillside property.
A concern raised at the Planning Commission meeting was neighborhood compatibility, which isn 't an issue for
me and the neighbors . My neighborhood was built in the 1960s and when most people wanted a single story
ranch style home -2200+/-Sq Ft. Today, people want 2 story homes with a full basement/cellar, as is being
done to most single story homes sold in the Rinconada neighborhoods. I fully expect that when my house is sold
in the future, the new owner will want to scape the house and build a 2 story house with a full basement/cellar,
since the house is as large as possible for the allowable setbacks of this lot today.
It has been 3+ years for us to live with this semi-abandoned Elks Building and the issues of homeless people
camping in the parking lot, constant littering on the street and on the property, the safety hazard for the general
disrepair of the building and property, a nd most recently a fire from PGE wires, causing damage to a fence from
the dead brush/trees burning, but could have been much worse for our neighborhood, if not caught so quickly.
I request you r approval of this project when it is on the Public Town Council Meeting schedule.
Dale Miller
115 Newell Ct
Los Gatos 95032
408 399 6955
DaleMill e rL G@comcast.net
Jennifer Armer
On Aug 22 , 2017, at 1 :04 PM , Rick Potter <ri ck lpotter20 l 2@gm ai l.com> wrote:
Dear Ms. Sayoc,
As a neighbor of the dilapidated Elks building at 105 Newell Ave. I would like to request that you approve
the development of this property into 4 homesites. Not only would this improve the look of the neighborhood,
but it would eliminate the negative issues that the neighbors who back up to the property are currently
expenencmg.
Thank you ,
Janet and Rick Potter
144 Newell Ave.
Rick Potter
( 408)489-7343-Cell
Jennifer Armer
On Sep 3, 2017, at 3:48 PM , Liat Perlman <liatperlman@ gmail.com > wrote:
Members of the Town Council ,
We've lived at 183 Newell Ave and share a back fence with the above named Elks property for 38 years.
We have expressed our support for the development of 4 new homes on this property at two planning
commission meetings including August 9 of this year and have been waiting for over 3 years for this
development to be approved, and thus break ground.
At the last planning meeting the approval was 4:2 with some caveats . With this email, I want to RE-confirm my
complete support for this development to be approved AS IS.
Also joining us in support of the development is Laverne Hardenburgh, 40 + year owner/resident at 179 Newell
Ave which shares a fence line with the Elks property.
Below, I address the caveats raised by the planning commission.
Excess of FAR I differing FAR calculations
The residents of this neighborhood are not naive , we understand that exceptions are difficult as they can be
precedent setting. However, this situation needs COMMON SENSE mitigation and the mitigation can and
should be noted with your approval (thus preventing a precedent for all).
The neighborhood as a whole strongly supported the 4 home proposal over a year ago (refer to the outpour of
support in the 2016 minutes). We understand that the developer gains by maximizing the structure size,
however, the planning commission admitted that the lot is a very difficult lot to build on (due to slope) and
accepted the fact that 2 or 3 homes would not economically be viable for a developer, thus a 4 home solution is
required.
We support the developers FAR calculations (or a FAR exception if you wish to call it that) on the basis of
above reason ALONE, however, IF that is not enough, there are a few other means to address the FAR
calculations.
Early on in the process, the developer worked with the Fire Department to yield a plan that would provide
ample access for Fire Safety concerns.
We propose that the SQFT turnaround/no park zone for addressing Fire vehicles requirements could (if it ha s
not already) be assigned to the two clo sest homes and surfaced as a drive-o ver hardscape with a Town/Fire
department easement and/or stipulation that it can not be blocked or parked on. This would mean that the base
land calculation could be increased for the two adjacent homes/Lots.
Alternatively, WE propose that excess FAR could be addressed by the removal of s ide-walks and assignment of
the corresponding land to the associated four homes, again increasing the base land calculation for each of the 4
lot s. While the private street is already narrower than the existing Newell Ave and courts, thi s would not have
impact on the drivable surface area. Additionally the parking spaces could be handled in similar manner, the
SQFT could be assigned to the homes and included in the FAR calcul a ti on. A dual purpose surface could be
required such that the surface could be used for parking.
Here is a link to example of how the "turnaround area" and the "sidewalk" area could be landscaped such that
they have a dual purpose use while still being calculated within the FAR of each of the 4 homes.
https ://www.google.com/search?q =concrete+grass+pavers&tbm=i sch&tbo =u&source~uni v &sa=X&ved=OahU
KEwjiq no4YnWAhVJwVQKHV3sBd8QsAQleA&biw=l280&bih=628
Finally, we ask you to ponder what the FAR calculation would be had the Town NOT built such a high
retaining wall on Winchester Ave when the street was widened 20-30+ years ago. We recall my deceased
father/husband pleading with the City Planning commission (letters and meetings) not to add the 2 + foot
land scaping section at the base of the wall in favor for a lower wall. At that time, the still so ur compromise was
that Town PROMISED to maintain the landscaping. Even without the 5 year drought and despite some the
"beautification" committee planting some Daffodils that appear once a year for about 2 weeks, s ince the original
trees and plants were placed, the town fell dramatically short in maintaining this area. IF you were to ADD this
2+ foot strip to the base land calculation for the two adjacent homes, what would the FAR calculation be??
SIZE of homes vs Neighborhood
We propose that the nearest homes selected by the Town Planners is NOT adequate. A much larger sample
should have been selected and WOULD yield different calculations when compari ng the proposed 4 homes to
the adjacent neighborhood. Refer to below as backup for this position.
Newell Ave residents have a tight identity as the WHOLE Newell Ave Neighborhood because we are BOUND
together by geography
a) the shape of our street - a Horseshoe
b) being cut off from other residential neighborhoods by the Privately owned lot which has the PG&E easement
and which now houses a second Bay Club Courtside parking lot
c) the VERY heavily trafficked Winchester Blvd.
Despite above, the nearest most compatible neighborhood that Newell can be most closely likened to and
associated with is indeed what the developer suggests, Via Montagne. Newell Ave was built in the 60s and
while there has been home sales and a handful of additions , overall, residents have been long standing and home
sizes have been fairly constant. This is about to change as residents are aging and homes will be sold. New
owners WILL be seeking major additions and home sizes WILL increase. The economics of buying these older
homes requires it. Its unavoidable that existing Ranch style homes will be expanded, 2nd stories will be added
and in some cases basements. In the years to come, Newell Ave look and feel will inevitably be more like Via
Montagne. This too must be taken into account when considering the Elks development home size relative to
the existing Neighborhood.
We will be selling 183 Newell Ave in the next 1 -3 years, and ahead of that time , we will be investigating with
the planning department the maximum allowable expansion/addition when we promote the house for sale. Its
simply inevitable that next owners WILL add-on. The planning department should start considering the
maximum allowable SQFT on older properties when evaluating new adjacent developments.
Greater than 100 ' Retaining Wall and so called massiveness of the structures.
The planning commission raised concerns with a greater than > 100 foot retaining wall. Here is our respon se.
a) Given that the city opted to build a retaining wall on Winchester Bl vd much higher and therefore longer than
was necessary AND longer than 100', this concern seems to pail by comparison!
b) We now enter Los Gatos from highway 85 and have our view of the Mountains completely lost due to the
C ity 's approval of the massive Netflix buildings . (We may love Netflix, but it was the town that made this
MASSNE mistake)
c) 53 year old 183 Newell home's fence /wall is longer than 100'. If it were not for the mature vegetation, it too
would be equally visible (so called massive).
d) immediately across Winchester there long standing large size corporate buildings and 2 blocks down the
street large size Bay Club.
The building of these 4 homes AS IS is NOT out ofline with the intersection let alone OUR neighborhood.
As an immediate fence sharing neighbors , we assert that thi s concern is simply not grounded in reality.
The ambience of this intersection and this neighborhood WILL be greatly improved from the (AS IS) planned
development.
For anyone on the planning department or the planning commission to say anything to the contrary is NOT
accurate and demonstrates a lack of common sense and aesthetic. Yes, zero common sense -No different than
the fools error made when placing 3 handicap parking spaces on the secondary/added Bay Club parking lot
rather than adding them immediately next to the Bay Club building where they can be used (or numerous other
things we could raise , but won 't at thi s time as we do not want to dilute this me ssage.)
City Counsel , it is time for you to li sten to your constituents at the North end of town. The time to VOTE YES
on the Elks development was last year, let alone NOW.
VOTE YES!
Liat and Barbara Perlman
183 Newell Ave
(831)247-5990