Staff Report - 15860-15894 Winchester Final
PREPARED BY: JOCELYN PUGA
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, Community Development
Department Director, and Finance Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 10/17/2017
ITEM NO: 8
DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2017
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-16-023, SUBDIVISION
APPLICATION M-16-002, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-16-003.
PROJECT LOCATION: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: DOUG RICH, VALLEY OAK PARTNERS. PROPERTY
OWNER: SOUTH BEACH PARTNERS LLC AND CUMULUS CAPITAL HOLDINGS
LLC.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A
REQUEST TO DEMOLISH THREE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES,
REMOVE A SECONDARY UNIT, REMOVE LARGE PROTECTED TREES, AND
MERGE FOUR LOTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING A NEW TWO-
STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH BELOW GRADE AND AT GRADE PARKING
ON PROPERTY ZONED O. NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT AND A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED. APNS 529-11-013, -038, -
039, AND -040.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution (Attachment 12) denying the appeal of a Planning Commission decision
denying Architecture and Site application S-16-023 and Subdivision application M-16-002.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is approximately 1.3-acres, comprised of four existing parcels located on the
east side of Winchester Boulevard at Shelburne Way. The site is developed with three single-
family residences and an accessory dwelling unit.
PAGE 2 OF 8
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD/S-16-023, M-16-002, AND ND16-003
OCTOBER 12, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\10-17-17\15860-15894 Winchester Blvd\Staff Report - 15860-15894 Winchester Final.docx 10/12/2017 12:23 PM
BACKGROUND (Continued):
The surrounding area contains a mix of uses that are consistent with either the General Plan
Land Use designation or zoning district, or both. Single-family residential, office, and
commercial uses are located across Shelburne Way to the north of the project site. Commercial
uses, including the Los Gatos Dog and Cat Hospital and the Los Gatos Body Shop are located to
the east. A residential development is located to the south and office uses are located across
Winchester Boulevard to the west of the project site.
The Planning Commission considered the applications on January 25, 2017. The applications
were continued to March 22, 2017 with specific direction from the Planning Commission to
reduce the perceived height of the building. On March 22, 2017, the project was continued to
April 26, 2017 to allow the applicant additional time for revisions and outreach to the
neighbors. On April 26, 2017, the Planning Commission denied the applications, as discussed in
more detail in the Discussion section of this report. The decision of the Planning Commission
was appealed by the applicant on May 8, 2017 (Attachment 10).
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.280, the appeal must be heard within 56 days of the
Planning Commission hearing; however, the applicant waived the 56-day appeal period. At the
request of the applicant, the applications were continued from the August 5, 2017 Council
agenda to October 17, 2017. The Council must at least open the public hearing for the item,
but may continue the matter to a date certain if the Council does not complete its work on the
item.
If the Council determines that the appeal should be granted and that the Planning
Commission's decision should be reversed or modified, the Council must make one or more of
the following findings, in accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
1. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or
2. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not
readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
3. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or address,
but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
This Code section also states that if the only or predominant reason for modifying or reversing
the decision of the Planning Commission is the availability of new information as defined in
item 2 above, it is the policy of the Town that the application will be returned to the
Commission for review in light of the new information unless the new information has minimal
effect on the application.
PAGE 3 OF 8
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD/S-16-023, M-16-002, AND ND16-003
OCTOBER 12, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\10-17-17\15860-15894 Winchester Blvd\Staff Report - 15860-15894 Winchester Final.docx 10/12/2017 12:23 PM
BACKGROUND (Continued):
To support the finding(s), the Council must also identify specific facts for incorporation into the
resolution (Attachment 13 if remanding to the Planning Commission or Attachment 14 if
granting the appeal).
DISCUSSION:
A. Project Summary
There are four existing parcels that the applicant is proposing to merge into a single 1.3-
acre parcel. The existing residential uses on the four properties are non-conforming
because residential uses are not permitted in the Office zone without a Conditional Use
Permit. The applicant is proposing a new office use that will be consistent with the zoning
and General Plan designation of Office for all four properties.
The proposed project would create a new two-story office building totaling 30,070 square
feet with 87 parking spaces below grade and 41 parking spaces at grade, for a total of 128
parking spaces. Amenities and site improvements for the project include bike storage,
shower facilities for employees, and new landscaping.
The currently proposed building has a front setback between 35 feet, nine inches and 44
feet, four inches along Winchester Boulevard (25 feet minimum is required); a side setback
of 78 feet bordering a residential development to the south (10 feet minimum is required);
a street side setback of 20 feet, five inches along Shelburne Way (15 feet minimum is
required); and a rear setback of 63 feet, two inches bordering the Los Gatos Dog and Cat
Hospital and the Los Gatos Body Shop (20 feet minimum is required).
The proposed 30,070-square foot commercial building would be a maximum of 35 feet in
height through the center ridgeline of the building. The wall plane heights at the northern
and southern elevations vary in height and façade treatments to visually break up the
building into smaller elements. The maximum height allowed by the Town Code is 35 feet.
Materials would consist of smooth troweled plaster, wood siding, metal panel siding,
aluminum windows, and a standing seam metal roof. A color and materials board will be
available at the public hearing.
The story poles have been updated to reflect the modified building design that was
presented to the Planning Commission on April 26, 2017 to show the location, general
massing, and height of the currently proposed building.
Attachment 15 contains a Project Information Sheet summarizing questions and responses
associated primarily with the traffic analysis.
PAGE 4 OF 8
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD/S-16-023, M-16-002, AND ND16-003
OCTOBER 12, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\10-17-17\15860-15894 Winchester Blvd\Staff Report - 15860-15894 Winchester Final.docx 10/12/2017 12:23 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
B. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee
In January 2016, the applicant brought its proposal for a two-story office building to the
Town’s Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC). While the comments of the
Committee are not binding on any deciding body, the Committee identified specific items
that would need to be evaluated during the application process for the proposal (see
Attachment 1, Exhibit 11 for the minutes of this CDAC meeting).
C. Planning Commission
On January 25, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project and
continued the project to March 22, 2017 with specific direction that the applicant consider
the following modifications:
1. Modify the color of the building;
2. Reduce the height of architectural elements;
3. Address features that increase the perceived height of the building;
4. Set the building back an additional 10 feet from Winchester Boulevard;
5. Add a solid wall along the southern property line;
6. Relocate the exhaust fan; and
7. Retain more existing trees.
At the January 25, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission also expressed concerns with
vehicles exiting left out of the surface parking lot onto Winchester Boulevard. The verbatim
minutes for the January 25, 2017 meeting are included in Attachment 4.
The applicant requested that the applications be continued to the April 26, 2017 meeting to
provide additional time to prepare materials and conduct neighborhood outreach. On
March 14, 2017, the applicant submitted revised plans responding to the comments made
by the Planning Commission, which included the following modifications (see Attachment 6,
Exhibits 23 and 24):
1. Modified the color of the exterior plaster and incorporated the use of more natural
materials including stone and wood.
2. Eliminated one tower element along the front elevation with one remaining towards the
southern property line that is required for a stairwell and roof access and modified the
southern elevation to step down to a single-story element with a maximum height of 20
feet.
PAGE 5 OF 8
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD/S-16-023, M-16-002, AND ND16-003
OCTOBER 12, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\10-17-17\15860-15894 Winchester Blvd\Staff Report - 15860-15894 Winchester Final.docx 10/12/2017 12:23 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
3. Modified the roof style along the northern portion of the building from a front-to-back
gable roof with a peak ridgeline to a shed roof . The maximum height of the building is
still proposed at 35 feet through the center ridgeline of the building; however, the wal l
plane heights at the southern and northern elevations were reduced between four feet
and 10 feet due to the modification from a front-to-back gable roof to a shed roof
(Attachment 6, Exhibit 28).
4. Set the building back an additional six feet towards the rear property line, resulting in a
proposed front setback of 35 feet, nine inches, exceeding the 25-foot minimum
requirement of the Town Code.
5. Added a 42-inch tall masonry wall along the southern property line.
6. Relocated the exhaust fan to be vented vertically through the roof of the building.
7. Retained tree #8, a six-inch Coast Live Oak along the front elevation; however, by setting
the building back an additional six feet, tree #25 (a 17-inch Coast Live Oak) and tree #40
(a 16-inch Valley Oak) were proposed to be removed.
On April 26, 2017, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the project due to
concerns regarding the project’s compliance with the Community Expectations section of
the Commercial Design Guidelines, preservation of hillside views traveling along Winchester
Boulevard, safety entering and exiting the surface parking lot off of Winchester Boulevard,
and the size of the building.
The verbatim minutes for the April 26, 2017 meeting are included as Attachment 9.
D. Appeal to the Town Council
On May 8, 2017, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town
Council by the applicant (Attachment 10). Supporting comments and materials were
provided with the appeal. The reasons for the appeal are listed below, followed by staff
comments in italic font.
1. The appeal identified that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion in
that the proposal is in compliance with the written and technical requirements
prescribed by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; however, the project was denied
under a premise that there would be additional office projects in the surrounding area
PAGE 6 OF 8
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD/S-16-023, M-16-002, AND ND16-003
OCTOBER 12, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\10-17-17\15860-15894 Winchester Blvd\Staff Report - 15860-15894 Winchester Final.docx 10/12/2017 12:23 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
in the future and the Town Council should set the direction on the size and intensity of
office buildings in the immediate vicinity (Attachment 10).
The revised project does meet the objective standards of the Zoning Code. However, the
Planning Commission determined that the square footage of the revised project was not
compatible with the neighborhood and was not in compliance with the Community
Expectations section of the Commercial Design Guidelines.
2. The applicant identified that the scale of the project is consistent with the surrounding
area as the project proposes a lot coverage of 26.5 percent compared to the adjacent
Palo Alto Medical office building, which has a lot coverage of 27 percent on a sm aller lot
than the proposed project site.
The Planning Commission considered the information that was provided and determined
that the revised design and its total square footage was not compatible with the
neighborhood.
3. The applicant stated that the direction given by the Planning Commission at the January
25, 2017 meeting was addressed in the revised design that was presented to the
Commission on April 26, 2017. The applicant states that the existing views of the
hillsides from Winchester Boulevard are substantially impacted by the existing
perimeter trees that are proposed to be retained as part of the project and the
architectural changes to the roof lines and building height were strategically located to
address all areas not already encumbered by the existing perimeter trees.
The Planning Commission considered the information that was provided and determined
that the revised design did not adequately address all of the direction from the January
25, 2017 meeting.
4. The applicant’s traffic consultant, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. submitted
new information in the form of a memorandum addressing the concerns raised by the
Planning Commission at the January 25, 2017 meeting (Attachment 6, Exhibit 26). The
traffic consultant stated that prohibiting left turns from the surface parking lot onto
Winchester Boulevard is not recommended because the diverted traffic would impact
the surrounding residential streets, including Via Sereno and Bruce Avenue.
The Planning Commission considered the information that was provided and still had
concerns regarding the speed and number of vehicles traveling down Winchester
Boulevard in regard to vehicles entering and exiting the proposed project.
PAGE 7 OF 8
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD/S-16-023, M-16-002, AND ND16-003
OCTOBER 12, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\10-17-17\15860-15894 Winchester Blvd\Staff Report - 15860-15894 Winchester Final.docx 10/12/2017 12:23 PM
CONCLUSION:
While the project meets the technical requirements and staff originally recommended approval
of the proposal, it is the practice of the Town for staff to support the Planning Commission’s
action. Therefore, it is recommended that the Town Council adopt a resolution denying the
appeal and denying the project (Attachment 12).
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Council may:
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 13) to grant the appeal and remand the project to the
Planning Commission with specific direction, determining that the Planning Commission's
decision should be reversed or modified, and finding one or more of the following, in
accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
a. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission;
b. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not
readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
c. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision; or
2. Adopt a resolution granting the appeal, making one or more of the above findings, adopting
the MND, and approving the project (Attachment 14, Exhibit A and Exhibit B); or
3. Continue the application to a date certain with specific direction.
COORDINATION:
The Community Development Department coordinated with the Par ks and Public Works
Department and Santa Clara County Fire Department in the review of the applications.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Attachment 1, Exhibit 1) have been
prepared for the project by the Town’s Environmental Consultant, EMC Planning Group Inc.
(available online at www.losgatosca.gov/15860-15894Winchester). The 20-day public review
period began on November 11, 2016 and ended on December 1, 2016. The project will not
result in a significant effect on the environment because mitigation measures have been added
for Air Quality, Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Geology and Soils, and
Hazardous Materials, mitigating potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. The
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been provided along with the response to
comments (Attachment 1, Exhibits 12 and 13).
PAGE 8 OF 8
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD/S-16-023, M-16-002, AND ND16-003
OCTOBER 12, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\10-17-17\15860-15894 Winchester Blvd\Staff Report - 15860-15894 Winchester Final.docx 10/12/2017 12:23 PM
Attachments:
1. January 25, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 2-15, Exhibit 1 was
previously distributed under separate cover on July 21, 2017)
2. January 25, 2017 Planning Commission Addendum Report (with Exhibits 16-18)
3. January 25, 2017 Planning Commission Desk Item Report (with Exhibit 19)
4. January 25, 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (104 pages)
5. March 22, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibit 20 – was originally
misidentified as Exhibit 16)
6. April 26, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 21-28)
7. April 26, 2017 Planning Commission Addendum Report (with Exhibits 29-30)
8. April 26, 2017 Planning Commission Desk Item Report (with Exhibit 31)
9. April 26, 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (112 pages)
10. Appeal of Planning Commission decision, received May 8, 2017
11. August 15, 2017 Town Council Staff Report
12. Draft Resolution to deny appeal and deny project
13. Draft Resolution to grant appeal and remand project to Planning Commission
14. Draft Resolution to grant appeal and approve project (includes Exhibits A and B)
15. Project Information Sheet, prepared by the Parks and Publi c Works Department
16. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Thursday, October 12, 2017
Distribution:
Doug Rich, Valley Oak Partners, 734 The Alameda, San Jose, CA 95126
South Beach Partners LLC and Cumulus Capital Holdings LLC, 125 South Market Street, Suite
1250, San Jose, CA 95113