Loading...
Attachment 9 - Public Comments received 1101 a.m. Wednesday, June 12, 2019 to 1100 a.m. Thursday, August 1, 2019ATTACHMENT 9 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Supplemental Opposition to Planned Development Application for 16212 Los Gatos Boulevard Jeffrey A. Barnett 8.1.19 This Supplemental Opposition to the STEM application for approval of a commercial building at 16212 Los Gatos Boulevard augments the comments made in my opposition dated 6.9.19. I make these comments as a citizen of the Town, and not as a member of any Town committee or commission. •The Five Foot Setback is not justified. The Justification Letter dated May 31, 2019 does not support the reduction of the fifteen- foot setback to five feet. The letter explains that the Safe Routes to School standards required that the developer move the curb ten feet into the northbound lane of Los Gatos Boulevard. However, the sidewalk extension does not logically support a reduction of the required setback which amounts to a two-thirds degradation. See Letter, Page 1, Item a. The actual purpose of the requested five foot setback is to address proposed parking. See Letter, Page 1, Item b. It is the developer’s responsibility to design and build in accordance with the Town’s requirements, and the property/building size and related parking requirements are not an excuse for a dramatic loss of the setback. The justification letter further states that the developer has maintained the required setback from the curb to the building and that it will achieve a greater setback than the minimum. However, the setback must be measured from the property line and not the curb. •The Commercial Design Guidelines The Justification letter acknowledges that under Section 5.A.2.1 of the Commercial Design Guidelines, setbacks should be substantially landscaped, including minimum landscape of fifteen feet from fronting sidewalks and large trees. The proposal does not address this requirement. The letter also does not explain the deviation from the general requirement of the Commercial Design Guidelines that buildings on corner locations should generally be limited to one story in height and that views to the surrounding hill should be maintained, especially at signalized intersections. See Sections 5A.1 and 5.A.2.6(a) on Page 44 of the Guidelines. The minimal setback, two story height, and lack of landscaping in the proper location would create a building mass that is inconsistent with the look and feel of the Boulevard. See Opposition dated 6.9.19, Pages 1-2. •The Standards for Approval of a Planned Development Are Not Met. Section 29.80.075 of the Town Code states that the purpose and intent of a planned development overlay zone is to preserve, enhance, and/or promote: (1) The Town’s natural and historic resources; (2) the production of affordable housing; (3) the maximization for open space; and/or (4) a project that provides a public benefit to the citizens of the Town. None of these justifications apply to the submitted project. See Opposition date 6.9.19, Page 1. •The Los Gatos Boulevard Plan Would Be Violated. As noted, the proposed project is not consistent with the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan because it would conflict with the character of the neighborhood. See Opposition dated 6.9.19, Page 1. •The General Plan Issue: The proposal should be denied because it conflicts with the General Plan. Its architecture is not consistent with the immediate neighborhood. See Opposition dated 6.9.19, Page 2. •The CEQA Issue: A negative declaration should not be granted because of the adverse aesthetic impacts of the proposed building. See Opposition dated 6.9.19, Page 2. In conclusion, it is the duty of the developer to propose construction that conforms to the General Plan, the Commercial Guidelines, the Boulevard Plan, the requirements for a PD overlay and CEQA. The Town should not set an adverse precedent by allowing a two-story building on a corner and particularly by concurrently permitting a PD overlay for the sole purpose of avoiding a reasonable setback requirement. The proposal does not provide a factual basis for the necessary findings by the Council. Thank you for considering these points. Jeffrey A. Barnett .