Attachment 21 - Public Comments received between 1101 Oct. 13, 2017 to 1100 Oct. 16, 2017October 14, 2017
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Town Council:
Bryan J. Mekechuk
17509 Via Sereno
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
408.655.0400
bryan.me/cechuk@comcost.net
Re: 15860. 15880. 15894 Winchester Boulevard
My wife, Jo-Anne Sinclair, and I own a house across Winchester Boulevard , less than 150 feet from the
comer of Winchester and Shelburne Way, which is the North West corner of the proposed
development. We have owned 17509 Via Sereno since 1997. In addition, we own a dwelling at 55
Roberts Road in Los Gatos. We have enjoyed living in the Los Gatos community for the past 20 years
and we look forward to at least another 20 years in the same location.
My wife and family welcome the development of the proposed site provided it is an attractive and
sustainable development that fits with Los Gatos. Further, the development should not block views of
the Los Gatos hillsides, which the Town of Los Gatos is committed to preserve.
To date, I have attended information sessions hosted by the applicant, reviewed the story poles erected
on the site, reviewed the complete application as filed with the Town of Los Gatos, attended all Planning
Commission meetings where the application was on the agenda, and testified In public hearings.
The Planning Commission is extremely diligent when rev iewing applications and seeks ways to approve
proposed developments that will fit with Los Gatos. After an extensive and thorough review of the
applicati on In two meeti ngs, the Planning Comm ission unanimously denied the application.
I ask the Town Council to deny the appeal. This letter sets forth the reasons why I believe the appeal
should be denied.
Basis of Appeal
In t he appeal, the applicant cla ims (emphasis added):
As part of the motion for continuance at the January 25th hearing, Planning Commission requested
that the applicant "consider architectural tweaks to lesson [sic] the perception of the height or
consider reducing the height of the building" and to "consider moving the building back." All of these
requested revisi ons were made and appropriately demonst rated at the subs equent hearing.
Furthermore, t he presentation demonstrated that existing views are substantially i mpacted by
exist ing perimet er t rees that ar e being retained by the proj ect, and that the arch itectural chan ges t o
r oof lines and building height were st rategically located to add ress all areas not en cumbere d by
~xisti ng trees.
ATTACHMENT 2 1
October 14, 2017 Page 2
Although the applicant stated that all these requested revlsions were made in the plans submitted for
the April 26, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant failed to state that they made one
[egregious] change -creating a corner office with broad glass showing the spectacular views of the Los
Gatos hillsides and impinging on the privacy of the existing adjacent residential properties.1
The applicant says that they complied with the architectural tweaks yet the applicant changed the South
East corner of the proposed building at the last m inute.
The appeal should be denied based on that misrepresentation alone.
Building Height is Understated
The applicant stated in their appllcation covering letter (received by Town of Los Gatos Plann i ng Div ision
dated December 5, 2016), "Large glass openings complete the design while providing plenty of natural
light and vlews of the hills to the east." The applicant acknowledged the importance and value.of those
views and, by providing those views for their tenants, the proposed structure will block the views for
everyone else.
I raised the issue with the building height in the Planning Commission meeting on January 25, 2017.2
After that meeting, I sent a letter to the applicant dated January 30, 2017 (attached). I hand delivered
copies· of the letter to the Town of Los Gatos showi_ng that copies were for Jocelyn Puga and the
Planning Commission. I understand that this letter was stamped and in the Town of Los Gatos file but it
was never provided to the Planning Commission or Town Council.
In that letter to the applicant, I described my concerns regarding the building height in detail and
requested cross sections showing elevations/heights above sea level so everyone, especially the staff
and Planning Commission, could understand the building height. Based on my review of the project site
and my review of the actual land survey as submitted by the applicant, and the applicant's decision to
ignore my letter of January 30, 2017, I believe the applicant understated what .the actual height of the
building would be (references relative to sea level make elevations simple and easily comparable).
During my testimony on April 26, 2017 I referred to my letter (which the Planning Commission did not
receive) and explained the issue.3 Commissioner Hudes asked a question regarding why I thought the
building height may exceed the height requirements. I answered the question by referring to the
elevations on the tree inventory sheets so the Planning Commission could understand the e levatlons.4
•••••••
Again, I ask that the Town Council support the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the
appeal.
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Mekechuk
1 April 26, 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes, page 36 lines 14 to 24, and page 39 lines 12 to 16.
2 January 25, 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes, page 61line13 through page 62 line 3.
3 April 26 , 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes, page 36 line 24 through page 37 line 15.
4 Ibid, page 39 linel 7 through page 40 line 14.
January 30, 2017
Mr. Doug Rich
Valley Oak Partners, LLC
734 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Dear Mr. Rich:
BryanJ.AAekechuk
17509 Via Sereno
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
408.655.0400
bryan.mekechuk@comcast.net
Re: 15860. 15880, 15894 Winchester Boulevard
Reauest for Information
We met on September 12, 2016 at the neighbor information session that you hosted at Los Gatos Lodge.
Since then, you should have received copies of letters dated January 19, 2017 and January 24, 2017, and
heard my public testimony on January 25, 2017.
The Planning Commission gave you specific directions to consult with neighbors and I have offered to
provide you with feedback. To start, I ask you to:
1. Establish a date to meet with neighbors.
2. Review the maximum building height requirements as set forth by the Town of Los Gatos.
3. Provide cross sections showing existing grade and then provide cross sections showing the building
perimeter and tallest points (as defined by the Town of Los Gatos codes).
4. Update the story poles with a contrasting color for any rev isions to the building perimeter and
profile.
5. Prepare a LEED checklist Identifying the LEED points that this project would generate.
Each of these items are described bP.low.
1. Establish a date to meet with neighbors
Please let me know when you would like to meet with your neighbors. Several people have asked me
when the next meeting will be (they know that your project is on the March 22, 2017 Planning
Commission agenda).
2. Review the maximum building height requirements as set forth by the Town of Los Gatos
At the January 25, 2017 Planning Commission meeting many people, including Commissioner Hudes and
Mr. Paulson, felt your proposed building heights and building planes were confusing. I was puzzled by
the reference on A2.0 of 382 ft with other elevations along the same building perimeter of 376 ft , which
could result in a maximum building height of 411 ft at that plane (not 414 or 416 ft).
Since that meeting, l read the relevant Town of Los Gatos codes and noted the following:
January 30, 2017 Page2
Sec . 29.60.105. -Height. The maximum height of any principal building in an 0 or office zone is thirty-
five (35) feet, and of any accessory building is fifteen (15) feet.
One must refer to the definition of height to see how it is measured (emphasis added):
Sec. 29.10.020. -Definitions.
Height means the height of all structures, excluding fences, shall be determined by the plumb vertical
distance 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 po int directly above that grade. For
portions of a structure located directly above a cellar, the height measurement for that portion of the
structure shall be measured as the plumb vertical distance from the existing natural grade to the
uppermost point of the structure directly over that point i n the existing natural grade. No point of the
roof or other structural element within the exterior perimeter of the structure shall extend beyond the
plane established by the maximum height plane except as allowed by section 29.10.090.
Grade, (natural) means the lowest point of ground elevation of undisturbed soil as measured from a
known fixed reference height benchmark or as a height referenced from sea level.
Grade, (finished) means the lowest point of ground elevation of the finished surface of the ground after
any construction or grading activities (including, but not limited to cut and fill of existing slopes) as
measured from a known fixed reference height benchmark or as a height referenced from sea level.·
Additional sections are as follows:
Sec. 29.10.090. -Height restriction, exception.
Towers, spires, elevator and mechanical penthouses, cupolas, wireless telecommunication antennas,
similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances which are not used for human activity or
storage may be higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone. The use of tower elements or
similar structures to provide higher ceiling heights for habitable space shall be deemed as a use intend-
ed for human activity and is therefore not exempt from the maximum height restrictions of a zone.
Sec. 29.40.045. -Height determination on sloping lots.
Where the slope of a lot (measured in the general direction of the lot lines) is greater than one (1) foot
rise or fall in seven (7) feet of horizontal distance from the street elevation at the property line, building
height is limited to a plane parallel to the surface of the ground unaltered by grading {Including
excavation) for the building in question. The plane is at an elevation set by the rules of each zone.
Building height is measured vertically from the grade to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof
(slope one (1) in twelve (12) or less), or the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the highest gable of a
pitched or hip roof.
After reviewing the height requirements and definitions, please incorporate the heights referenced from
sea level in future diagrams for clarity within and across sheets in your application.
3. Pro vide cross sections showing existing grade and then provide cross sections showi ng the building
perimet er qnd tallest poi n ts
Based on the Town of Los Gatos codes, please provide elevations (cross sections) of the natural grade
that will be under the highest points of the roof and parking structure, showing the elevation of the
natural grade above sea level. If you (or your architect) are using BIM (Building Informational Modeling)
January 30, 2017 Page3
software then this information sh ould bP. easily and readily available. I use Arch lCAD and ca·n «fly
through• bu ildin gs and cut cross secti ons at any po in t. Th e shadow study diagram s on SP4.0 appea r t o
be generated with SIM software.
Then, after you revise your building (if you choose to do so), based on the Town of Los Gatos codes ,
please provide elevations (cross sections) through the highest points of the roof and parking structu re,
showing the elevations of the roof relative to sea leve l.
In advance of the public meeting, please provide the eight cross sections that were requested In our
letter to the Planning Commission dated January 24, 2017 . Then, at the ne ighbor meeting you could
present and explain the cross sect ions to help everyone attending to understand your proposal.
4. Uodate the story poles with a contrasting color for any revisions to the building perimeter and profile
After the w i nd and rain that we experienced recently, the story poles have sagged and are not Indicative
of the proposed project. If you revise the building structure and profile (e.g., location, heights, exterior
features) then please update the story poles to reflect the changes. It would be very helpful to use a
contrasting color, such as blue, to highlight the changes and make it easy and fast to understand.
5. Preoare a LEED checklist identifying the LEED points that this project would receive
During the Planning Commissi on meeting, Commissioner Hanssen asked you about pursuing LEED
certification to which you responded that you represented that the project would pursue •(EEO
equivalent/' going through all the steps except actual certification.
Commissioner Kane suggested that you could •score# your project without the actual, and costly,
certification process. You responded that you would complete a LEED chec klist. Your architectura l firm,
T Square Stud io, has two LEED AP acc redited architects and one of those, Chris Roberts, obtained LEED
Gold certtflcatlon for the NoHo Ill Office Buildlng.
Presenting how your proposed building would score by using the LEED checklist would certainly
demonstrate (by its score) your level of commitment to sustainability for this project.
Please complete the LEED checklist, even if only a first draft, so the neighbors can understand the
sustainability elements of this project. The LEED checklist and corresponding score should be updated
prior to approval by the Planning Commission and when applying for your build ing permit.
Please contact me by telephone {408 .655.0400} or email regarding any pa.rt of this letter.
I look forward to hearing from you .
Sincerely,
Bryan J. Mekechuk
cc Jocelyn Puga, Associate Planner
Los Gatos Planning Commission
The public comment also
iricluded the verbatim minutes
for the January 25, 2017 and
April 26, 2017 Planning
Commission meeting which are
included as Attachment 4 and
Attachment 9 to the October 12,
2017 staff report.
Jocelyn Puga
Subject RE: Left tum issue with proposed Winchester office complex
From: Andrew Spyker [mallto:awspyker@gmail.com)
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 8:06 AM
To: Marice Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>; Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Marcia Jensen
<MJensen@losgatosca.gov>; Steven Leonardis <Sleonardis@losgatosca.gov>; BSpector <BSp~ctor@losgatosca .gov>
Cc: Jessy Pu <jpu@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Councll@losgatosca.gov>; Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>;
Jocelyn Puga <JPuga@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Left turn issue with proposed Winchester office complex
Town Council Members,
I would like to start with documenting that our own town traffic engineer has stated twice that moving all traffic to
Shelburne would impose no additional traffic concerns. Given every neighborhood meeting has suggested that removal
of the Winchester driveway was a key requirement, the "game of inches" danger of left turn visi bility by a single
misjudged car egress, and the fact that the sidewalks are used by many Dave's elementary school children, we continue
to want the driveway removed. The applicant has said that removal of the driveway would make his building less
financially viable. We believe this tradeoff between safety and profit by the applicant a mistake.
History
On Jul 28th, we met with the town traffic engineer to discuss this topic given the comments at the April planning
commission meeting. At this meeting, we were informed that the "traffic memo" contained the exact location used to
confirm safe left sight distances from the Winchester exit. As far as I'm aware, the overhead view (page 14 of the
recently added public record "Attachment 18 -Applicant's Presentation Slides form April 26, 2017 Planning Commission
meeting" entitled "Driveway Sight Distance") wasn't available to residents until August 7th (provided by email). The
visibility photograph was available, but it lacked a view of what that meant for a car buffer. Trying to further clarify we
asked for exact GPS coordinates of the "safe" visibility location and were informed that exact coordinates are not
available. Therefore, the best location we have is the purple car approximation In the page 14 di agram.
You can also see our previous analysis in the desk Items for the 4/26 planning comm ission meeting here:
http:ljlosgatos.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php ?view id=S&cl ip id= 1684&meta id=l 76530
Please see the new attached presentation to understand our continued analysis given what has provided since the town
council meeting.
Our Analysis
Page 1 shows the only available information at the planning commission meeting. The picture is from the traffic study.
On page 2, I tried to take the same picture t o be able to judge the exact location being used to judge safety. GPS
coordinates would have been easier, but instead I had to be approximate. On page 2, you'll also see that location of cars
in the on street parking changes the perspective. Unfortunately in the photo used in the traffic report, the parked car
wasn't at the location to give the "worst" case perspective. In my previous analysis I provided both legal and non-legal
worst case sight views which change the sight distance drastically.
1
For the page 2 picture, I documented in page 3 where you need to stand exactly to get this view. On page 4, I estimate
this to be about 13 .5 feet from the center dotted white line. On page 5, you can see a car placed exact there in relation
to a driver. The car is a copy to scale with the photo (taken from the parking lot on the left}.
As you can see on page 6, the proposed sight line leaves a car's hood basically inches from oncoming traffic.
Furthermore this is a sedan. If the car was replaced with a delivery truck, it is likely the truck would have to be in
Incoming traffic to get the same visibility.
Also, it should be noted that the applicant intends to set back the driveway multiple feet back from where the current
sideway is and plant trees on the property corner. See page 7. This means that by the time the car is inched forward
enough to have the required visibility, the car would be well .ahead of the end of the driveway. We ask the council to
decide if it will be more common for every casual visitor to this office complex will inch right up to traffic well ahead of
the end of the driveway or to instead try to turn from the end of the project's driveway. I believe even the applicant
would agree that if cars at the exit started their egress from the proposed driveway end, there wouldn't be enough sight
visibility. We believe this is why the applicant tried to re-stripe our on-street parking without our permission to further
improve sight visibility.
While we do not believe this sight point used in the traffic studies to be correct, let's assume for the time being it is. On
page 8, we have the recently provided overhead view documenting a 250' view corridor. As mentioned previously, on
page 9, what if the UPS truck parks to make deliveries (illegally, but common). Also, what if someone is pulling out from
the driveways for 706/708 Winchester (legal). On page 10 we showed a zoomed in view of the traffic study photo.
Page 11 shows the UPS truck to scale in the location previously documented in photos. While this is illegal parking, it is
common. While it might be tempting to say that we should solve illegal parking, will this be this be an acceptable answer
if someone is hit and injured at this driveway? This UPS parking would reduce the sight visibility to 75'.
Page 12 shows a totally legal common situation. It documents a resident leaving from an existing residential driveway. In
this case the sight visibility is reduced to 140'. This is less than the distance required by CA DOT (150') for the posted
speed limit and drastically less than required for the speed of cars on Winchester.
Suggestion
From our very first neighborhood meeting with the applicant, we have asked for this driveway to be removed and to
route all traffic through Shelburne where traffic is less problematic and slower moving. We continue to suggest this.
Anything less will lead to accidents.
Given this is a key route to school for elementary children and given we have already seen children on bicycles hit by
drivers trying to ingress to Winchester from right across the street, we don't believe this is a hypothetical problem. We
want a solution for this very real problem .
Jocelyn/Joel, please confirm this email and the attachment are included in the public record.
Thank you I
Andrew Spyker (awspyker@gmail.com)
2
Hexagon traffic study
From 4/26 planning commission meeting
• http://losgatos.granicus.com/Genera
tedAgendaViewer.php?view id=5&cl
ip id=1684
• "Staff Report and Exhibits 21-27"
page 50
"These distances are safe for speeds exceeding the current
traffic speeds. The study recommends that on-street parking
be prohibited within 15 feet of the driveway to ensure
adequate sight distance is maintained. When added to the
adjacent driveway aisle and red curb, there would be a
stretch of about approximately 85 feet with no parking
allowed, which facilitates sight distance."
As noted before, this isn't parked as far
forward as legal or typical
-r
~--
-----~
··?'
.,
Q)
L..
:J ......
(.) ·-c..
Q)
E .0
j
i ro I en
C)
c: ·-.. -\'\... ~ 11-'11~ ro ......
Q)
~ ~
F==-=~ = =-~ fiYAfm~
----
-· en
Q)
..c:
(.)
c ·-"l-o
Q)
E co
(!)
What about this?
New tree
blocking view
,.,.., l'lllNDCI
11(1WE£N
f'Ml(INGIJojl)
l'llOl'P'IY IJN!.
T'I!'
4J"lflCIH
New project driveway is set back further than
e}(isting sidewalk.
What if drivers decide to turn from actual driveway?
....... --------
..,,.
• '
+-' c c
0 Q)
e> ~ E ca:= ~ >< Q) (.)
Q) :!:::::: 0
I Cl) Cl
What if ...
We accept the vantage point as "safe" by the town (we don't, but what if)
We instead consider blocked views by
• UPS trucks that park to deliver packages
• 706/708 residents using their driveway to exit
Zooming in
"'C .c:: (!.) 0 "'C ......., ......., ·--0 "'C ~ ca Cl) c: ~ (..) ,,_ 0 :::::J
C> :::::J "'C c: ..... ~ ·-I-Ecn +-' ..c:
0 a.. C'> 9' ~ :::J ·-LO
en "'"
"'C .c. Q) 0 +""' "'C +-' ·-"'C "'C ~ ca Q) c:~ 0 ·-0 :::J
O> :::J "'C c: L.. Q)
·-I-L..
E (/.) +-' .c. ... 8 a. O>o ·-~ N :::> (/) ~