Loading...
15860, 15880, 15894 Winchester Blvd - Addendum and Exhibits 16-18 PREPARED BY: JOCELYN PUGA Associate Planner Reviewed by: Community Development Department Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 01/25/2017 ITEM NO: 3 ADDENDUM DATE: JANUARY 24, 2017 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 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: DOUG RICH, VALLEY OAK PARTNERS. PROPERTY OWNER: SOUTH BEACH PARTNERS LLC AND CUMULUS CAPITAL HOLIDINGS LLC. REQUESTING APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH THREE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, REMOVE A SECOND 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. APNS 529-11-013, -038, -039, AND -040. DEEMED COMPLETE: JANUARY 5, 2017 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: JULY 5, 2017 REMARKS: Exhibit 16 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 20, 2017 and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 24, 2017. The applicant has provided a rendering of the building to illustrate the proposed height, setback, and articulation along Winchester Boulevard (Exhibit 17). Additionally, the Parks and Public Works Department has provided a project information sheet for the project (Exhibit 18). PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD/S-16-023, M-16-002, and ND-16-003 DATE: JANUARY 24, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Winchester 15860-15894 ADD.docx 1/24/2017 4:34 PM EXHIBITS: Previously received under separate cover: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration Previously received with January 25, 2017 Staff Report: 2. Location Map 3. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages) 4. Recommended Conditions of Approval (21 pages) 5. Letter of Justification/Project Description (three pages), received March 3, 2016 6. Neighborhood Meeting Outcome and Attendees (two pages), received Septembe r 13, 2016 7. Consulting Arborist’s First Report (46 pages), dated February 12, 2016 8. Consulting Arborist’s Second Report (seven pages), dated June 10, 2016 9. Consulting Arborist’s Addendum (two pages), dated July 22, 2016 10. Consulting Architect’s Report (three pages), received May 5, 2016 11. January 13, 2016 Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes (two pages) 12. Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (eight pages) 13. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated January 5, 2017 14. Public Comment (seven pages) 15. Development Plans (29 pages), received January 5, 2017 Received with this Addendum Report: 16. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 20, 2017 and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 24, 2017 17. Additional information provided by the application, received January 24, 2017 (two pages) 18. Project information sheet provided by the Parks and Public Works Department, received January 24, 2015 (four pages). 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 Jocelyn Puga From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Andrew Spyker <awspyker@gmail.com> Saturday, January 21, 2017 1:59 PM Jocelyn Puga Joel Paulson Comments on 15860, 15880, and 15894 Winchester Blvd Project Jocelyn and the Town Of Los Gatos Planning Commission, I am writing with regards to the proposed office building at 15860, 15880, and 15894 Winchester Blvd . Our family lives at 708 Winchester Blvd in the University Oaks condominium complex which is the immed iate neighboring southern property to the project. I am also the president of the University Oaks HOA Board which includes ten total units across five shared buildings. I speak on behalf of only myself and not our association in this letter. Our unit is the closest unit to the property and most impacted due to our units being only separated . from the property line by a driveway and sound wall. Our windows are 20 feet from the property line of the proposed project. Various owners in the University Oaks have been actively involved in discussions with developer as represented by Doug Rich . We attended a meeting at the Los Gatos Lodge on September 12th where we first heard about the plan. At that meeting we expressed many of the concerns In this letter. We had an additional follow-up with Doug focused on the impact to our properties on December 9th. We have had additional communication via email with Doug. I was in attendance at each of these meetings and was on copy for all emails. I am appreciative of the time Doug has spent listening to our concerns and working on solutions for some, but not all, of our concerns. Doug has provided us with additional documents and plans that are not currently in the application documents, as far as I know. I will send them as attachments to this email. I would want all of the changes documented In this documents to be part of the considered plan. Size The size of the office is massive in comparison to any other office complexes along Winchester south of Lark Avenue. Of the current offices along this corridor, the next largest would be the Palo Alto Medical Foundation office. It should be noted that parking alone for this project would be twice the size of this next largest office. It is also worth noting that almost all other offices on Winchester in th!$ area are single story and much more blended with the local look and feel. Aliowing this size of office complex for this project will likely set precedent that this is what look and feel we want along the Winchester entrance to Los Gatos. It is very likely that other recently vacated and un-leased properties (Green Thumb for example) immediately to the North would consider similar projects bringing an office look and feel to our town. It Is also worth noting that residential has abandoned (converting to businesses) neighboring properties with the largest existing office building (the Palo Alto Medical Foundation office) and we'd expect that trend to continue as larger office complexes are built. The size is most noticeable from our vantage point. The building is truly massive as compared to our home. The maximum height of 35 foot is "hidden· to some extent from the front of the property due to the slope of the property being smaller on Winchester and larger towards the back of the property. Unfortunately given the slope of both the property and our neighboring property the full extent of the 35 foot is clearly visible to us . In fact , from our bedrooms our view of trees and the sky will mostly be replaced (80%) with a view of an office building wall and parking lots. This is due to the fact that the property is a parking garage at our at ground level plus two more stories on top. Also be aware that all existing trees between us and the building EXHIBIT 1 6 1 are to be removed which further makes the view problematic. Please see the attached pictures for how this will change our existing views (a rough rendering of a before and after view from one of our bedrooms). The town should consider if this office is what is needed now. It should be noted that there are three office complexes within two blocks of the site that are vacant or have leasing available. Notably, the Twin Parks office complex right around the corner has been available for a very long time. Also, as noted during CDAC review the design is modern as compared to surrounding properties. While design has many aspects of opinion, it should be obvious that many buildings of this high tech feel together will start to redefine the acceptable eclectic town feel of Los Gatos. We haven't been able to discuss the size concern deeply with the developer as it wasn't clear until the story poles were added. Also, with the current trees (which will be removed) it was very hard to see the building outlines. Traffic Safety Visibility for "at grade" (actually above existing grade) parking that enters and exits on Winchester is unacceptable for left turns. Our current driveway is only a few feet from where the new driveway will be located and we know from experience that visibility is poor. When cars are parked on Winchester there is severely limited left tum visibility. We have learned to: 1. Look, before getting completely to the end of our driveway, behind parked cars for cars at the Blossom Hill intersection 2 . Time when cars are leaving the Blossom Hill intersection to know when to pull out 3. Pull out very slowly checking for any cars or motorcycles that might have accelerated or entered Winchester from Bruce Avenue This is also somewhat problematic for making right turns. During rush hour, I always tum right and avoid the dangerous left turn. It is unlikely that every car using the new office will be this careful exiting the driveway. If this driveway is allowed to make left turns, I expect there will be accidents. Also, given the proximity to the schools, drivers need to be extra careful of kids on bicycles and walking. Given the proximity to Dave's Elementary there are many walkers in the morning that would be walking past the property. Also, there are Fisher Middle bicycle riders that cross the front of the property at a higher speed. It should be noted that the smaller Palo Alto Medical Foundation office has similar challenges, but ls helped by a light at their driveway. Neither the at grade parking nor the partially underground parking garage will have any assistance to help cars safely turn onto Winchester. Exhaust and Noise The plans currently call for a fan to circulate air in the "underground" parking. This fan is currently planned to be as close as possible to the front door and windows of our neighbor and within a very short distance of our unit. We have concerns on the C02 emissions from all underground cars being pointed directly at our property. We are also concerned about the mechanical noise generated by such a fan. The developer has provided us with plan updated that show they could move the fan underground and slightly further away from our property line. I will attach those additional plans to this email. While moving this fan three parking spots further away is an improvement, it is very concerning to have such concentrated emissions so close to residences. 11 At grade" parking Issues The current plan calls for forty parking spots at grade. This at grade if the height of Winchester with a slope that doesn't match the current slope of the property. This results in parking that is higher than our directly 2 neighboring driveway and at level with our windows. Head-in parking on the southern property line is aligned perfectly to point at our home. We have both safety and lighting concerns with this. We have concerns that with only a curb and fence that cars could crash down onto our property from this elevated height. In discussions with the developer, they have added trees alo ng our property line, but it isn't clear that there is enough to guarantee that a car couldn't crash down onto our driveway which is a place where our children play. We had this concern confirmed by neighbors that have had this happen to their property twice in the recent years, both times mitigated by building a stronger fence. It would be better to solve this problem in planning than take the risk to solve it after an incident. As for lighting, the plans call for screening to reduce the Impact of headlights that are, due to the height, are aligned with our picture windows in our bedrooms. If this office building is used at later hours, we believe that headlights will now be shining into our bed rooms. Safety a n d secu rity It is unclear if the property will be monitored 2417 and how parking will or will not be restricted. Our residents toured the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and found that they have signs saying that towing is enforced and that garage opening is locked on off hours. Will that be the case for this property? Given our proximity to Vasona Park it is very likely on nice weekends for people to park at this office complex and walk through our property to get to the park as there is no direct access to the park from the property. Also, when we toured the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, we found evidence of homeless ·residents by the stairs used as secondary access to their garage. The planned building has a stairs planned five feet from our property line with open space between the elevated property and our sound wall. Will these stairs be secured on off hours? We are concerned about this from a safety and security perspective to avoid the problems that seem to be already evident at the other office building. Alternatives I would like to propose some alternatives for the planning commission to consider. Given the property is zoned to support offices, I will constrain my recommendations to items that could make the planned project better. I would personally prefer to see housing given California's needs, but that is beyond the scope of these recommendations . I would prefer to see a building that wasn't at the maximum size given how close our homes are to the property. The height makes the current plan loom over residential. If that means a one story property closer to our property, I'd want to make sure the height and angles are less impactful on our site lines. At a minimum I'd like to ensure we keep at least 50% of our current unobstructed or tree filled views . I would propose reducing both the size of the building and parking to be closer to other existing office complexes that neighbor residential . If the current size of the building was kept relatively the same, I would request that the 13 spaces that face our property be removed or relocated. This change would fix many of the concerns we currently have including : 1. Avoids safety issue of cars falling onto our property by providing a reasonable buffer before the end of the property 2. Removes concern of headlights pointed directly at our bedroom windows 3. Lessens the size vantage point issue especially if trees are blanked in the space vacated by these parking spots. Any trees at this· elevated level would do. a better job of blocking the vantage point of the remaining parking and building height. 3 It should be noted that similar spaces at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation office are not pointed to the edges of the property and are instead perpendicular to the property line. A very small request therefore could be to change the orientation of these 13 spaces to perpendicular (reducing the number of spaces by less than 13). Andrew Spyker (awspyker@gmail.com) 4 0 ~z ........ ~Q UJ -(!) SQ ~ 0 ~ (/) ~ w ---00 0 N .:.i c:> u.Z ~ z: Oz <( ~~ ~ t-Q.. LOUVER~ SIGNAGE l I I I I I I I I I 0 I 0 ...... GROUND LEVEL AIR SHAFT VENT EQUIPMENT I I I I I I I I I REC~A~VENT JAN 21 ZOl/ TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNlNG DIVISION WINCHESTER BLVD ..... 1....- GROUND LEVEL 15,075 SF ----------------•. .., .--T----r---~---·------.- -· --<Ir-- RECE\VED J/\~ z 1 1.017 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANN!XC DIVISION SITE (GROSS): 1.31 ACRE OFFICE (GROSS): 30,070 SF PARKING REQ'O: 128 CARS PARKING PRV'D: 128 CARS COVERAGE: 26.5% (40% MAX) 16' 32' 84' CJ> ::I: m r-m c :::0 z m ~ -< --17 = STUDIO TSQUARE ArchHeclura Plann ing Urban Design : 30412lh llMt. .... M , __ _ : 11110)411-2* IS Bl ~ ~ I G ! f ~ Gi i Si i .c -u I ~ i liw.111* .:.c c3 11 ~ I" ~ ,d > u BUILDING PLAN GROUND LEVEL Job NG. ,,.. ""'"' o,..,,,ay: ..... "" 15018 121Dlv.20UI 1/16·· 1'~· Al.1 ~~~ SECTION A-A' r:•':.:J!&.J' SECTION B-B' EXISTlNG FENCE___/ ~TREE •llY SECTION C-C' -FB«le--' / PROPOSeDPROJECT CONTINUOUS CUM 711#' NJ ( jWHEELIITTlP •~ llETN. 8CREEH PANEi. lei.A~~ •m.r Celumnllr ll'H: Carplnu1 llltulul 'fa1ligi1W A B c Met.I IOl'Hll panel ~r:inn lllif*tll; C!aodo!llU ""-H /Ii B' f?;;;:-~~,,.,,~r\~~!'i"'.\ Eldllll ~nnallan 11 bHlld an mnnnl canc11plu1I doolgn ol pnijocl. Flnol g,.d .. ta bo 111tobllahlld cNlng P19111..Uorfo!\io1it1Nli~1ii'lift91 projeOI approval. JAN 2 ·1 2017 TOVVN OF LOS GATOS PLANN .. \IG DIVISION I STUDIO TSQUARE Aldllleclure Pl.nnlng Urliln Dfflgn : .. , ......... IA. ·---•111111"'·- ~ rd ~ 3 I . l !j I .!i I = i ~ Ji I ~ l l ~' ~ u -...: ... : ....... 111111 -,_,,,,. -_.,, --IJ..t .. : January 21, 2017 Jocelyn Puga Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA Shauna and Bob Garzee 704 Winchester Blvd Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: 15860, 1S880, and 15894 Winchester Boulevard. Architecture and Site Application S-16-023 Dear Jocelyn and Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission, I am writing with regards to the proposed office building at 15860, 15880, and 15894 Winchester Blvd. My husband and I live at 704 Winchester Blvd in the University Oaks condominium complex which Is the immediate neighboring southern property to the project. I along with other homeowners of University Oaks have been in discussion with the developer via their representative, Doug Rich. We liave expressed the concerns about this project that I will outline in this letter. We met in person With Doug in December regarding impacts to our homes and the developer has worked on some of the Issues we ra lsed but not all. I do appreciate the time that Doug has spent with us but in no way, have all of my deep concerns been addressed. Our concerns are in the areas of size, design, traffic, parking, exhaust and safety. Size The size of the proposed office is massive in comparison to other office complexes along Winchester south of Lark Avenue. The next largest complex in the vicinity is the Palo Alto Medical Foundation office which is significantly smaller. The proposed complex will loom over us due to the complex being at the maximum height of 35 feet and the way they proposed to develop the property with an underground garage and then two full stories on top of the garage. We will basically have a huge 35-foot wall of building along the upper south side of our community. That along with the loss of many large oak trees· will significantly alter views. Design The design of this complex is definitely not in keeping with the 'look and feel' of Los Gatos and does not in any way blend into the neighborhood. While I realize that design esthetics are personal a very contemporary building does not match anything along Winchester south of Lark. Allowing this size and design will likely set precedent for what other redeveloped properties along Winchester will look like forever changing a very charming area into something that does not blend with the local look and feel. Traffic This complex will add a significant amount of traffic to the immediate area . Turning onto Winchester .from University Oaks driveways is currently difficult and all of us living here are very mindful of the danger of making a left turn onto Winchester due to sight line and the speed at which motorist drive. Additionally, this is a heavily travelled student route during the morning and afternoon. The proposed development's driveway is within feet of our existing driveway and given the dangers out pulling out onto Winchester the developer should be mitigating the chance of accidents by not allowing left turns from the complex driveway. Parking The current development show s 40 parking spots at grade . However, it should be noted that at grade is a misnomer from my perspect ive as the parking will be much higher than the current driveway on the property and will be directly level with the windows of 706 and 708 Winchester. The parking on the south side of the complex along the driveway has cars po inting directly at our complex generating both lighting and safety concerns. Given the height difference I believe there w ill be car lig hts shini ng into our neighbor's homes even with the metal screen proposed by the developer plus the opportunity for people to see into the homes. The height difference also creates a danger with regards to cars crashing through the barrier and down onto our property and driveway. Exhaust The developers plan call for a fan to exhaust or circulate air from the u nder ground parking and thi s fan is located very close to the front door and windows of two residents . I have concerns about the possibly toxic emissions from the underground parking being directed at our homes. Additionally, it isn 't clear how mu ch noise these exhaust fans will make and if they will be running 24x7 creating a very unhealthy and not very peaceful or enjoyable environment. Safety There are several elements of this development with raise safety concerns for us. First, there i s a stairwell leading to/from the parking garage that is approximately 5 feet from to o ur property line with an open space between the complex property and our wall -how does the developer plan to se cure this stairwell? This is a concern as it is a spot that could attract unwanted and possible dangerous activity during off hours. Second, how is the parking lot and the underground ga r age going t o be controlled? Will the garage be secured at n ight and on the weekends so that we are not impacted by others using the parki ng? Suggested alternatives Our preference would be to see much needed housing on this property but given the Commercial zoning we understand this is not pos sible or likely. So, I request consideration for the following: • Reduce the size of the development so that our residences are not faced with a looming wall by either reducing the height to one story or reduci ng to less than 35 feet. • Improve the buffering between University Oaks and the proposed complex by adding more and taller plantings or trees to help reduce the impact of a looming wall. • Restructure the parking such that there are not cars visible to and head l ights pointing towards the homes in University Oaks. • Con sider a design that is more in keeping w ith the look and feel of the immediate ne ighborhood. In closing we believe that it is in the best interest of the Town and the neighborhood to address these concerns by reducing the scope of this complex into something that is In keeping with the look and feel of Los Gatos. Thank you , ~~ Shauna and Bob Garzee Jocelyn Puga From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Jocelyn Paulson, karen vincent <karenvincent@msn.com> Sunday, January 22, 2017 2:40 PM Jocelyn Puga; paulson@losgatosca.gov karen vincent 15860 15880 15894 Winchester Blvd DSCN2718JPG I am a townhouse owner living at 711 University Avenue for the last 25+ years. I am adjacent to the planned structure on Winchester Blvd . I am very disappointed in reviewing the plans for the structure. I feel that the town needs to stop approvi ng these large two story commercial buildi ngs which are dwarfing the one story homes in the community. This planed monstrosity is just one more that ruins the character of our living environment. We do not need more empty commercial buildings. We do not need more unsecure underground parking lots which are a perfect environment for crime. When I leave my condominium complex In the morning I yield to children on bikes going to Daves ave school. I yield to the runners and walkers out for the morning exercise. Because this is MY community where I live I always give extra ·time for those on pedals or foot to have a safe distance from my car pulling out of a very busy Winchester Blvd. I fear for these children and others when there is a new office building with people pulling In and out that are late for an appointment or trying to speed up when going in or out of the structure to "beat" the traffic. · I do not mind modern buildings however this planned building looks "cheap and ugly". It looks like it bel.ongs in a strip mall in Modesto. It Is to h igh (almost 3 levels), blocking the greenery and mountai ns. It DOES have a significant impact on a scenic vls1'l if you lived on this blockl I ! I suggest a one story c~mplex . If that is not financially feasible for the builder then they can go elsewhere. I have concerns over the loss of more trees. When I look out my window I see green. I do not want to see an ugly building. See enclosed attachment. I would greatly appreciate your attention to this proposed project before It is too late and the damage Is done. Sincerely, Ka r en Vincent 1 Karen Vincent karenvincent@msn.com ·HOME DENTAL HYGIENE CARE 408 395-0402 FAX 408 395-3294 www.mobiledentalhygienecare.com "If you aren't part ofthe solution then you are part of the problem" The materials in this message are private and may contain information that Is privileged and confidential, Protected Health Information within the meaning of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and/or Medical Information within the meaning of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA). If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying, forwarding, printing, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information Is STRICTLY PROHIBITED and may be unlawful. If you have received this message by error, or have reason to believe that you are not authorized to receive it, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or destruction of these documents and delete this message. 11 1 value your business and I appreciate your referrals.11 2 Jocelyn Puga From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject Dear Jocelyn Puga, Georgina Van. Horn <george_vh@msn.com> Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:30 PM Jocelyn Puga Joel Paulson Winchester Office Building Project I am the owner of a townhouse closest to the proposed office building on Winchester Blvd. I have lived here thirty years and appreciate living in Los Gatos. I have several concerns with the plans for the proposed project. My first concern is with the size of the building. It is huge compared to the houses and other office buildings on Winchester. This boulevard is a main entrance to our town and the many trees and low buildings help to make the entrance attractive. Andrew Spyker, my neighbor, sent you before and after pictures of the trees now and the wall after. The wall of the building will block more of my sight because of the position of my unit. I propose a lower smaller building and keeping many more trees that are a treasure to the area. The design itself does not lend itself to the area. Another major concern is the traffic that will be generated. It is already difficult to turn right or left onto Winchester. With Daves Ave. School so close children are walking and riding their bikes in the morning and afternoon. Many Fisher Middle School kids also walk and ride their bikes on Winchester. In addition, cars routinely drive 40-50 miles an hour in the 25 mile an hour zone along that part of Winchester. My driveway is adjacent to the proposed driveway. This safety Issue needs to be addressed. The exhaust fan for the underground parking has been discussed several times. How much ofthe fumes will be coming out just a few feet from our complex? And the cars will add to this. The noise of the fan is also troubling. I ask you to please take my concerns and those from others under serious consideration. We have a unique little town ... l'm so fortunate to live here ... we need to keep it livable and green!! Sincerely, Georgina Van Horn 706 Winchester Blvd. 408-395-6740 1 Jocelyn Puga Subject RE: Proposed development at Winchester and Shelbourne -Original Message-- From : Linda Lanzi [mailto:lindalanzl@gmail.comJ Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 7:01 PM To: Council Subject: Proposed development at Winchester and Shelbourne Hello Dear councilmembers, I live on Poppy Lane, between Dates and Bruce. So I am very aware of the proposed development on University Avenue, around Shelbourne. I a~ pleading with the council t«;> please reject the proposal as it stands today. There are too many beautiful coast live oaks there that will be removed (because the construction alone will kill them) or build so close around them that they may not s~rvive. These are protected trees and we must show that we value our natural environment more than a man-made building. I read the entire arborist report and I am shocked this is even being considered. I beg you not to approve the development. There are other options. Regards, Linda Lanzi 15827 Poppy Lane Monte Sereno, CA 1 Jocelyn Puga From: Sent To: Subjed: Karen Kurtz <kurtzk@comcastnet> Tuesday, January 24, 2017 U:Ol AM Jocelyn Puga Winchester/Shelburne project I'm writing to say that I do not approve of the proposed project on Winchester & Shelburne . 1. When we are supposed to be providing more housing In the town, why would you allow residential parcels to be changed into commercial? There is residential all around this area. It seems like it could be a place where you could build & fulfill some of the affordable housing requirements. We do not need more commercial buildings. You have other proposed office buildings in several other locations in town coming up. With a recession being predicted in the next couple of years what are we going to do with all the empty office & retail buildings. Take into consideration all the projects coming up before you when you are considering this project. 2. I also think that the proposed design is too contemporary for our historic town. It looks like all the other recently built commercial buildings in town and neighboring towns. We are losing our unique historic & charming community. It's such a shame & I'm so sad about that. I realize change happens & life moves forward but I believe we can do a better job of preserving the look & feel of our unique community & still move forward. That is why I chose this community to live in 40 years ago. Though beautiful inside, even our library is much too contemporary for our historic town. 3 . Then there is the issue with the number of trees being requested to be cut down. And the building heights hide the mountain views. 4. Please do not let this project go through as planned. Protect our community from more office/commercial & contemporary design~d buildings. Thank you, kill re~ Kurtz 1.07 'E>YDCl o!WCl lj 1 Jocelyn Puga From: Sent To: Cc: Subject Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Categories: Andrew Spyker <awspyker@gmail.com> Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:33 AM Jocelyn Puga Joel Paulson Addendum to my initial comments on 15860, 15880 and 15894 Winchester Blvd Project SouthernElevationAtGradePar1cing.pdf Follow up Flagged Red Category This is in addition to the email I sent on 1/21. I wanted to provide additional research on the issue with the current "at grade" parking. Please see the attached PDF and referenced page numbers. I believe the current plans are misleading on the height of the building as it relates to "at grade" parking. You can see on page 1 how it shows at grade parking level with surrounding property. However, on page 2, you can see how it is 4' above grade. Also, in the documentation provided to me by Doug Rich (page 3), it shows the elevation ~ifferences at up to 4'. Also, the setbacks are the minimum for this structure at 10' (with a stairway only at 5'). This allows for a stair way, a exhaust vent, and 13 parking spaces to be located very close to the residential border. You can see this on page 4. The plans sometimes refer to a 78' setback which is the distance from our elevation to the building. Our setback is also impacted by the far closed 5' and 10' mentioned earlier. On page 5 you can see how close this is to our residences. Our residences are not set back deeply on our property and this has not been an issue due to curreni residential use of the property. Also, the fact that our parking has always been at grade on both sides has meant that we had sufficient screens and there was no issue of cars falling onto neighboring properties. To help consider alternatives, i decided to compare similar situations around the area. On page 6, you can see how the parking at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation is different. Specifically, they re- oriented the parking spaces at the top of the hill to be perpendicular to the neighboring property. I believe they did this to avoid the head in parking problems I mentioned in my previous email (safety and headlight concerns). Also, please note the large wall that was constructed to block cars and headlights on the bottom half of the hill. Finally note this parking is truly "at grade" compared to the neighboring property. In my email, I mentioned a safety concern with cars falling off the elevated property onto our property. In discussions with our neighbors we were made aware of this exact problem across the street at the Ear, Nose and Throat office. You can see on page 7 how there, after an accident, had to construct a major metal blocking wall in addition to screening shrubbery. I would prefer if we avoided this situation in design vs. the unknown of what could happen in an accident. I was also made aware of another similar office and residential border with elevation differences. This border is between the house that border the Panera and Office Depot shopping plaza and the parking. On page 8, you will see how in this case the border is much deq)er than 10 feet, contains substantial old growth trees, and is 1 separated by a concrete block wall. With all of these additions, safety, lighting and screening are handled far better than the Winchester project. I ask the planning commission to consider the Policy LU-6.3. I believe there is more that can be done now in design to protect our existing residential areas from this proposed adjacent nonresidential use. The safety issue should be mitigated by a) dropping the height of parking to be at grade level b) providing a similar buffer as has been done on other properties developed in Los Gatos and c) removal of head in parking that is directed at current windows of residences. Thank you for your time! Andrew Spyker (awspyker@gmail.com) 2 ~------.~ L. \. -·. ~., .. I I I I I I I •.\·. ·. :-' ·, ' ~·· 'V' 'W :--' • I ~ I !I ... J ~ I I ~ I r • 0 I I '" i I I !! I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I ; I I I- I I .o..n I I ---' I.. I . ~ I I I r; t I + I I I I ..... ·.·.·.·. ~: \?~ ---- Jocelyn Puga From: Sent To: Cc Subject: Suzanne Rollin <sfrollin@gmail.com> Tuesday, Janua:y 24, 2017 10:59 AM Joel Paulson; Jocelyn Puga Andrew Spyker 15860, 15880 and 15894 Winchester Blvd Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flagged Flag Status: Categories: Red Category Dear Director Pauson and Assistant Planner Puga: I am writing to you to express my concerns regarding the Applicant's project on 15860, 15880 and 15894 Winchester Blvd. I have been a resident of the adjacent townhouse condominium complex, University Oaks, at 715 University Avenue since 1997 and have very much enjoyed the quiet and serene neighborhood. My concerns are as follows: • Building Size: o The building is is inconsistent with all other office sizes on Winchester and will to set precedent for future redevelopment further north. o The building will be a looming structure due to the slope of the land and position of the parking garage, effectively giving it the profile of a three story structure, which blocks 80 % to 100% of the view of the sky and trees for at least two University Oaks Units . • , Traffic Safety o Has the traffic study taken into account the actual speed at which traffic flows on Winchester Blvd? It is often faster than 25 mph. o The very unsafe plans for allowing left turns from their Winchester entrance. No left tum exits should be allowed. • Building Height u At grade parking is not at grade with existing grade. It is elevated a few feet above current grade by the time the parking is at our units o Concern of cars crashing down through our wall onto our driveway o Concern of car headlights facing our buildings • Screening/Fence between the Project and University Oaks o Suggest that the screening be made more robust, such that is is both strong and aesthetically pleasing. o Suggest that extensive greenery be planted on the Project's fence as well as on the side of University Oaks in order to help conceal the industrial nature of the fence from the existing residential homes. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Suzanne F. Rollin 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank January 24, 2017 Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Commissioners: Bryan J. Mekechuk/Jo-Anne Sinclair 17509 Via Sereno Monte Sereno, CA 95030 408.655.0400 bryan.mekechuk@comcast.net Re: 15860. 15880, 15894 Winchester Boulevard For ADDENDUM We are providi ng additional information to our letter dated January 19, 2017. In doing so, we reiterate the following: My wife and family welcome the development of the proposed site provided it is an attractive and sustainable development that.fits with Los Gatos. We do admire the style of the building. To summarize this letter, we believe that the Planning Commission should CONTINUE the applications to a later date so the applicant can: 1. Provide information as requested (e.g., additional cross sections and elevations) and answer questions the applicant is unable to answer during the meeting. 2. Meet with interested members of the community and present information to them and receive their feedback (i.e., additional community outreach). 3. Update the Transportation Impact Analysis to include traffic flows to/from Daves Avenue Elementary School via Bruce Avenue. If the Planning Commission must make a decision on January 25 then we ask that the Planning Commission DENY the applications. Increase Community Outreach Unfortunately, as with the North 40, the Planning Commission (and Council) probably recognize now that the public really doesn't get involved until story poles are put in place. Until then, many members of the community are reticent to review the plans In detail and focus on the proposed development. The only outreach in the community for this project was a meeting held on September 12, 2016. Two signs were erected when the story poles went up in December 2016, which is when the community really became aware ofthe project. We are disappointed with the limited community outreach associated with this application. It was misleading to have the applicant's structural engineer at the meeting on September 12, 2016 and then see the applicant imply this person attended.as a member of the community. Regardless of the Intent, the financial interest should be disclosed to be transparent to staff and the Planning Commission. January 24, 2017 Page2 On a positive note, the applicant did follow up with residents only immediately adjacent to the project, which they promised to do at the September 12 meeting. We are offering to attend any future meetings and provide feedback to the applicant, and we believe others in the community may attend such meetings as well (similar to Alberto Way). Provide Cross Sections and Elevations During our review of the application, we found the single East/West and North/South cross sections to be inadequate to understand the application. In addition, we believe the maximum height of the building was stated incorrectly by the applicant as the highest point of the roof was noted at 414 ft whereas the actual highest point is almost 416 ft . Further, the applicant shows the refe rence elevation for the 35 ft maximum bu ild i ng height i n the North West corner of the project as 382 ft (see A2 .0), and is 6-1/2 ft further West t han most of the building. That may be fine for that part of the buildi ng -the reference elevation for the Southern portion of the building should be on the existi ng grade of the driveway, which is approximately 375 ft . The reference elevation at the Ea st side of the proposed building should be 372 ft . resulting in a maximum height of 407 ft. The applicant has picked a "high point" and carried the absolute maximum height across the property result ing in the proposed building exceeding the maximum allowable height for Office Professional. The elevations shown on A4.0 are difficult to understand as the land is sloped and the reference points are not clear. The structure on the roof, behind the parapet, in the South East corner r ises significantly above the tine of the raised seam steel roof, which is shown on A2.0 to be 35 ft above grade. Please refer to the attached sketches Identifying the eight cross secti ons and elevations that we would like to see. For clarity, the reference elevations should be labeled on each drawing. Perform Transportation Impact Analysis Traffic studies are an estimate and are a starting point for any analysis. After reviewi ng the transportation impact analysis completed by Hexagon Transportation Studies, Inc., we identified significant gaps in the analysis and I spoke with the author of the report on Friday, January 19, 2017. While the author acknowledged our concerns, he st ood by the conclusions (as one would expect). The major gap in the analysis was understanding the traffic flows generated by Daves Avenue Elementary School. The traffic flows at the T intersection of Bruce Avenue and Winchester Boulevard, just steps South and across the street from the proposed development were not identified whatsoever in the analysis (see diagram below, taken from Figure 1 Site Locations and Study Intersections). January 24, 2017 Page3 Although the Town of Los Gatos specifically requested that the impact on Daves Avenue be considered in the transportation impact analysis, the Intent was probably to understand the Impact on drop-off and pick-up at Daves Avenue Elementary School. The report included the following: Project Impacts on Daves Avenue during School Peak Hours Daves Avmue Elementary School ii located 11ppr01C:imat81y 2,000 fwtwest of the project lite. H. the request of the Town, a qualitative discu11slon of project impacts on Daves Avenue cl.iring peak morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up periods is provided. Daves Avenue Elementary School currently begins classes at 8:15 AM for all grades and ends at appre»cimately 2:30 PM for 1111 grades on all weekdays except Wednesday, when students end dasses at appre»cimately 12:15 PM. Hexagon observed trafic operations on DaYBS Avenue during the peak school morning droi>off and alemoon pick-up hours. As ciscusud in Chapter 2, only minor congestion issues were observed, and the congestion lasted a period of apprQlCimately twenty to thirty minutes. During th• school morning drop-off peak period, the proposed project is axpactad to generate three trips within an hour on eastbound Daves Avenue . During the school PM pick-up hours, oflice land uses typically generate little traffic, and the project is net assumed to generate any traffic on eastbound Daves Avenue. Overall, during beth the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up school peak periods, the proposed prajed is not expected to add a noticeable amount oftramc to eas1b~und Daves Avenue, which experiences minor congestion for the peak twenty to thirty minutes of 'SChool activity. During both the morning ctop-off and aftern0on pick-up !)ours at Daves Avenue Elemem.y School, Hexagon observed that the majority of the drop-off and pick-up operations oiccurred on-site. Only a few parents dropped-off or picked-up their children whil~ parfced along Daves Avenue Overw.11, sludants are being dropped-off and picked-up in a safe manner. B~ause the pr~ec:t is expected to add only three trips during the morning peak hour and no traffic during the a~moon school peak hour onto Daves Avenue, it is not exp.cted that the proposed project would significantly affect the current drop-off and pick-up patterns 1111d affect student safety. · The map below shows the streets Jn the vicinity; many drivers use Bruce Avenue when dropping off and picking up students at Daves Avenue Elementary School: I r i I .>Yildc i ' January 24, 2017 Page4 Failing to identify and analyze the traffic flows into and out of Bruce Avenue at Winchester damage the credibility of the analysis and conclusions of the entire report. Anyone familiar with the area understands the traffic routes surrounding drop-off (AM) and pick-up t i mes (PM). In addition, other student activities after school generate PM traffic by parents, teachers and staff, and others. Further, it is difficult to establish traffic patterns related to Daves Avenue Elementary School with only one data point (March 2016). Restrict Entrance/Exit to At Grade Parking from Winchester Boulevard The transportation impact analysis reviewed the Winchester entrance/exit to the at grade parking and states, "Sight d istance requ i rements vary dependi ng on the roadway speeds. The speed limit on Winchester Boulevard and Shelburne Way is 25 mph." Very few vehicles follow the posted speed limit on Winchester Boulevard. If actual vehicle speeds were only 25 mph then the recommendati ons regard i ng the entrance/exit could be plausible -in r eality, vehicles are generally accelerating after the Blossom Hill/North Santa Cruz Intersection and are go ing more than 30 mph where the entrance/exit wou Id be located. Fortunately, since there is a vehicle speed indicator for Northbound traffic on Winchester Bouleva rd, it would be easy to sample vehicle speeds to see-how fast vehicles are actually going. Allowing vehicles to turn left into or turn left out of the at-g r ade parking will be dangerous and an ac cident will occur. Prohibiting such left turns should be a condition of any proposed development. In 2016. Traffic Flows are Dynamic, based on Smart Phone Apps The data sources used by the traffic consultants and their methodology and analysis softwa re completely Ignores the increasi ng use of smart phone apps, including Waze, Google Maps and Apple Maps. These apps have changed the dynamic of traffic flows by moving traffic to alternative routes quickly when arteries are delayed, congested or blocked. These new technologies, which are increasingly available, affordable and functional, have been recognized by California lawmakers in establish ing new laws regard i ng the use while drivi ng, Unfortunately, the transportation analys is industry has failed to include the impact of these new technologies In the ir analyses. Hexagon (the traffic consulting firm) should have included a proviso and warning in their report stating that the use of smart phone apps has not been considered in their analysis or conclusions, which may cause materia l errors . As the Planning Commission knows, minor delays in common traffic patterns are immediately recogn ized by smart phone apps; drivers going through Los Gatos as well as drivers living in Los Gatos rely on changi ng their route to save a small amount of t ime (because It takes little such effort). Smart phone apps that re-route traffic can make dramatic changes in traffic volumes quickly. Although a peer review of the transportation impact analysis may have been completed, since the traffic study industry is based on traditional (obsolete) driver behavior, it is not su r prising that this transportation impact analysis Is fatally flawed by not considering driving patterns and routes influenced by smart phone apps. Mitigated Negative Declaration -This Project Has a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista EMC Planning Group Inc. prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated November 2, 2016 for this project. This Monterey-based organization concluded that under "1. Aesthetics a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?'' there would be Less Than Significant Impact. We January 24, 2017 Pages disagree with this conclusion as the analysis falls to consider pedestrian traffic and a significant amount of other traffic on Winchester Boulevard, which now varies due to smart phone apps as described. Statement of Reasons to Support Findings (page 2 of November 2016 report) a. Hove a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact) The scenic vista toward the Santa Cruz Mountains is already partially obscured under existing conditions and the proposed bulldings would only affect a brief view of the mountains from westbound Winchester Boulevard/ the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on o scenic vista. Winchester runs North I South, not East I West·-let's turn to what is this conclusion based on. D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts (page 171 a. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Pion EIR (general pion EIR) Identifies southward views of the Santa Cruz Mountains and ridgelines as the primary protected scenic vistas within the Town . Due to the heavily-wooded nature of the Town, these views are most prominent from the southbound lanes of the Town's major north-south running streets. There are limited distant views of the Santa Cruz Mountains looking southward from Winchester Boulevard, but most currently available views of the mountains are perceivable when looking across Winchester Boulevard away from the project site and thus would not be obstructed by project development. Potential views of the ridge/Ines across the project site are mostly obstructed by existing development or tree cover along Winchester Boulevard. The mountains ore briefly visible across the project site at the corner of Shelburne Avenue. The existing house at that corner is about 18 feet tall with a gable roof and is set bock from Winchester Boulevard by about 30 feet and Shelburne Avenue by about 40 feet. The proposed project building would be approximately 20 feet closer to Shelburne Avenue and almost twice as tall. The proposed project would eliminate the brief view of the mountains from westbound Winchester Boulevard. The project proposes to maintain several existing trees along Winchester Boulevard and to plant new trees lining the street frontage where trees ore proposed for removal. The tree planting would preserve comparable views to those existing on Winchester Boulevard. The proposed project would slightly reduce views of the mountains, but would not result In significant Impacts to any designated scenic vistas as identified In the general plan. Thus, Impacts would be less than significant. The authors of the report equate the views of trees that block the mountains (as stated above) as identical to a two-story building blocking views of the mountains. We disagree strongly. The authors should consider pedestrians walking on the West side of Winchester Boulevard . The Town of Los Gatos promotes and motivates pedestrian activity-anything that make walking less pleasant, such as blocking and eliminating views of the mountains, should be evaluated negatively. For drivers, the authors believe there is only a brief view. Coming from Monterey, the authors may not be familiar with traffic issues Southbound on Winchester Boulevard. The Planning Commission knows that, increasingly, there are lengthy traffic delays Southbound on Winchester Boulevard, especially in the summer with beach traffic and with smart phone aJ>pS promoting alternative routes including using Winchester Boulevard to avoid congestion on Highway 17. By lowering the building height, anyone caught in traffic when driving Southbound on Winchester will have (more than a fleeting) opportunity to enjoy a view of the mountains (especially on beautiful sunny days that are prime beach traffic days). January 24, 2017 Page6 Everyone driving East on Via Sereno will lose the view of the mountains when stopped at the corner of Via Sereno and Winchester. The view from that corner of Via Sereno is not "brief." Overall, we disagree with the author's conclusion that there is Less than Significant Impact and request the Planning Commission find the impact as uPotentlally Significant Impact". Mitigating this impact may be achieved by lowering the height of the building. Provide Buffer to Residential Areas Although the applicant claims that there is a 78 ft buffer on the South side of the site, the "at grade" parking structure is, in reality, just under a one-story structure (the cross sections requested previously in this letter will illustrate this). When viewed from the South, the proposed building is massive as It is more than 35 ft height above the existing grade. Policy LU-6.3 states, uProtect existing residential areas from adjacent nonresidential uses by assuring that buffers are developed and maintained." For a project such as this, some type of tiered buffer would be more appropriate under Policy LU-6.3. Sustainability as a Condition for Approval Other than related to bicycles, the applicant has not volunteered to incorporate any sustainable elements beyond which are required by Title 24. Ignoring sustainability of this project is underscored by the applicant's avoiding the comment by the Conceptual Advisory Development Committee regarding applying for LEED certification (see memorandum dated January 6, 2016). The windows and orientation of the building will result In significant solar heat gain from the Western sun, which is api>arent from SP4.0. The project design does not prevent solar heat gain, which will result in higher energy consumption for the life of the building. Occupants will have high operating costs and require additional equipment, such as moveable window blinds, that will adversely affect the benefits of the west-facing windows while detracting from the building appearance. Applying for LEED certification will require the applicant to consider all aspects of building design and construction, including resource consumption (e.g., energy and water), durability and environmental impact. For such a development in one of the most travelled gateways into Los Gatos, LEED certification should be a requirement by the Planning Committee . ••••••• As stated previously, we believe it is in everyone's best interest to see an attractive and sustainable development that fits with Los Gatos so that it adds value to the developers, the surrounding neighborhood, and the Town of Los Gatos. If this application is continued, we will meet with the applicant and discuss all items set forth in this letter. Sincerely, Bryan J. Mekechuk Jo-Anne Sinclair '· »'4- Requested cross section #1 Cross section provided by application (Section B) +395' •382' •3118' These trees are misleading ~114' \~ ,.....T!r--u-q m1 ............. ~· ·-t- ./ ·~fi '!-~ t ,l'-1"· ( , __ ;..11: ~·· ,. .. --', -.i ' -: ,... 'T rl'&f 11 I .. Requested Requested cross section #2 cross section #3 Requested cross section #4 To understand the building structure, both above and below ground, we would like to see cross sections showing the existing grade at each cross section as it Is today. Then, we would like to see the building cross section at that point, which will require excavation or fill Requested cross section #5 ~:· ~ r It I I "'~ .. =~~~~ -~~_g><l~~DE Requested cross section #6 -t'I' Requested cross section #7 . Cross section provided by application (Section B) Requested cross section #8 This cross section does not appear to represent the existing grade and, in addition, this cross section of where the building is 6-1/2 ft doser to Winchester ~ ~· .. - t SECTION A SCALE: 3132" • 1'~0" 0 The existing grade may be here but is lower further South Xl2• CLO HJ 142 7~.50 ) '· -·-• ..... -a-a-- ,)> ~· ., o-U-&Ztl HiN'·· .• f · ~t.trto;; 11111 -;ioo .:· ·' ----···--·r {:.."Vl"'l.J• t;tA.•·~· '/.////] l" ;' -' ·' i' _,,· ' ~·.' {~ ~:~ ~---a~f:._.--'. ·..;.1 ~· •.. ~<" ··.l r-· ··.,I-.. ·-. • (,1.fk •. .;" FAl) ;:· I -. -<) ---... L- ·l' Sr: 0..3>< • ~ TAO ,ao .--:"' 3 11.4 4 ,, v·li!IT. ~11.12 u-nu / nm ... f \.. .. ' •. '· '· :; ., . NdV N ':>OCf .. r i .. t; ~ I \ I . ( ,. I '.t ( } (of" ' ~' ( ; .~ .. Cl.0 1 G l?.4 --i :-; -:'·· i l r I I I I I #4 #3 Requested cross sections 1 #1 #2 ... ::; -\s;o l•mm l=i-™ www r wr l I -~ -\ '• ' ' +!I+ iii +-::m 201-.S· l:P-4' 51-o' .. 31Z liti I I I lff'lrf.'.!>' ;I I I H\ 1[ I j i -·:-;;\ 1 • I GROUND LEllEL10,1175SF I i1111""1't-j jl_ ,•:1·:·:·:·:1 .· ........ •.•, .•. 1 .... "." .. •• .... 1 •••• '4 ....... , • I -I • I • • ~ r " ,. ' .!_ •• .!.:.:.!._ .. !_ .. ~' -~~~ ~ P-!! ~I l!!!!!'"I ~ •::m --7----r---~----7--~~-~-- +1 M.11.IGIO s -a~ -- .. :I'. ~ ·=· "•' ~:: 001111UOD8 CH.I I!!!!!'- llC ICll,~ ~Ii • -·r I ~ Requested cross section #8 Requested cross section #7 Requested cross section #6 #4 #3 #2 Requested cross sections #1 •• ---II l ww I lm w ww ww 41-w • ......_ .... JI~ """"' i I 11 I I ~ ~·· ~~I ,,..... •••is I I I I I 11 1 I I I --· _1 _ _1 _1 ·---WWW .. .. ~ I I I LI i I I WWW Jl I WWW- I ~ I ~ ~Al Requested cross section #8 Requested cross section ~ I II n1 I NI Requested cross section #6 ~'II Jocelyn Puga From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hello Jocelyn- Doug Riql <doug@valleyoakpartners.com> Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:39 AM Jocelyn Puga Exhibit 170124_Height and Setback Exhibit.pdf Please find attached an exhibit we would like to add to the commissioner's paeket. This information is in the project applicati~-but not in one readily accessible co;mbined exhibit We believe it important to highlight the height, setback and building articulation features that were incorporated into the building design. We will discuss as part of om presentation as well. Please confirm receipt. Thanks Doug Rich Valley Oak Partners, LLC 734 The Alameda f San Jose, CA 95126 T 408.282.0995 IF 408.282.9797 f C 925.570.4593 doug@valleyoakoartners.com I htto:Uwww.vallevoakpartners.com 1 EXBJBIT 1 't Note: Bulldlng height as shown measured from sldewalk grade; bulldlng heliht measurement of project complles with Town Code. See Section A on sheet Al.O RlECE;V!ElO ~JA~J 2 4 2017 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANhHNG DIVISION STUDIO TSQUARE : Aldllleclln ! PllnMlg : Ufbm Dellgn 3 ~I i i I . in II. 11 ~ JI ~I i ~t :!I > u --BUILDING SETBACK AND HEIGHT EXHIBIT ....... ~-· Dltl: OUMJOIJ -_.,, ...... : Parks and Public Works Department • Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030 408.399.5771 • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca TOWN OF LOS GATOS PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET Engineering Division January 25, 2017 ITEM: 15860, 15880, and 15894 Winchester Boulevard; APN: 529-11-013, 038 and 040 Architecture & Site Application S-16-023, Subdivision Application M-16-002, and Negative Declaration ND-16-003 PROPERTY OWNER: South Beach Partners, LLC/Cumulus Capital Holdings, LLC APPLICANT: Valley Oak Partners – Doug Rich Project Description: Requesting approval to demolish three existing single-family residences, remove a second 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. Q: Where is the development project? A: The location is at the southeast corner of Winchester Boulevard and Shelburne Way. Q: What is the proposed use? A: The proposed development would construct 30,070 square feet of office building. Q: Would the proposed development increase traffic? A: The proposal would generate more vehicle trips than what currently occurs with the existing three houses, resulting in an additional 303 weekday vehicle trips, including 38 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 46 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Q: Would the additional traffic trigger an environmental analysis and a traffic impact analysis? A: Yes. In accordance with Town’s Traffic Impact Policy, a traffic impact analysis (TIA) is required for any private development project that is expected to add 20 or more vehicle trips in the AM or PM peak hours. Q: How are AM and PM peak hours selected for any given intersection? A: The traffic consultants conduct traffic counts between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM weekdays when schools are in session for studied intersections. The one-hour duration with the highest traffic concentration (based on traffic counts) during both these morning and evening periods are the peak hours. These peak hour traffic times are used for the traffic analysis. Q: What would be the difference in the estimated traffic levels if the proposed development was to provide medical offices as opposed to office/professional? EXHIBIT 18 Parks and Public Works Department • Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030 408.399.5771 • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca TOWN OF LOS GATOS PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS A: A proposed medical office of the same size would generate 32 additional AM peak hour vehicle trips and 58 additional PM peak-hour vehicle trips than the proposed general office use. Q: What is LOS and how does it determine the impacts of project traffic on the Town? A: Traffic engineering standards use LOS to determine project traffic impacts. LOS (Level of Service) represents traffic intersection congestion by a letter scale that ranges from LOS A to LOS F, with LOS A representing the least or no congestion. The Town’s General Plan does not allow for developments to drop the LOS at an intersection by more than one level or below LOS D without requiring the developer to mitigate or provide a “fix” for the increased traffic delay. A project TIA analyzes LOS at impacted intersections and determines the required mitigation and impact significance. The impacts are only considered significant if the LOS drops more than one level or below a LOS D. Q: What are the TIA’s findings of the LOS impact for the Winchester project? A: The TIA concluded that all studied intersections would not drop more than one level or below a LOS D. Therefore, the project would not create a significant impact on traffic. Q: Did the TIA evaluate if the project access points would be adequate and safe? A: There are two project driveways proposed for the development, one on Shelburne Way and the other on Winchester Boulevard. The Shelburne driveway would serve 87 parking spaces in an underground parking garage, while the Winchester driveway would serve a surface- level parking lot containing 41 parking spaces. The TIA found the two driveways would provide adequate access and can operate safely with red curbs prohibiting on-street parking near the driveways to allow adequate site distances. Q: What are the estimated traffic volumes for the two proposed driveways? A: It is estimated that the Shelburne driveway will have 22 inbound and 4 outbound vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 2 inbound and 30 outbound vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. In regards to the Winchester driveway, it is anticipated that 10 vehicles will utilize this driveway during the AM peak hour and 14 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Six of the vehicles during both the AM and PM peak hours will turn left in from or left out onto Winchester. This level is considered safe and a minimal increase of cars. The center two-way left turn lane can be utilized to prepare for or complete a left turn movement when it is safe to do so. This configuration is typical throughout the Town. Q: Will there be a large volume of vehicles that turn left onto Shelburne Way to access the underground parking garage? A: No. It is anticipated that 5 vehicles will utilize this traffic movement during the AM peak hour. Similarly, it is anticipated that 6 vehicles will turn left onto southbound Winchester Boulevard from westbound Shelburne Way during the PM peak hour. Parks and Public Works Department • Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030 408.399.5771 • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca TOWN OF LOS GATOS PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS Q: What can be done to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the project? A: Even though the project is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts, a TDM (Transportation Demand Management) plan would be required for the development. The TDM plan would include a list of measures for reducing single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage alternative transportation modes such as riding bicycles, carpooling, and riding transit. Q: What measures will be implemented for promoting bicycle trips? A: The project is proposing a secured bike storage room that can hold 36 bicycles within the underground parking garage. In addition, the project would be required to install bicycle racks near the visitor entrance. Q: Would the proposed project construct any off-site improvements? A: The following off-site improvements would be required (see Attachment #1): • 7-foot right-of-way dedication for Winchester Boulevard along the project frontage for adding a bicycle lane for northbound Winchester. • Construction of a detached sidewalk along the project frontage. • Construction of a corner bulb-out at Shelburne Way and Winchester Boulevard, and striping of a high-visibility crosswalk for crossing Shelburne at Winchester. Q: It is possible to increase the setback from the Winchester Boulevard right-of-way, moving the building more to the east? A: From an engineering perspective, yes, this is possible; however there are other unintended consequences in doing so. For example, pushing the building back will directly lead to the narrowing of the rear bioretention area along the eastern property, requiring it to be lengthened and forcing the removal of three additional trees. This may increase the elevation difference between the surface-level parking lot elevation and the adjacent existing grade to greater currently proposed. Q: Is it possible for a vehicle to crash through the curb and fence of the surface-level parking lot and into a neighboring property? A: The developer has proposed curbing/wheel stops and fencing around the perimeter of the parking lot to prevent this, which is typical for elevated parking levels. Attachment #1BIKE LANE DETACHED SIDEWALK ~--------\v'INCHESTER BL VD. DETACHED SIDEWALK w z ()! :::J ~ _J w I (I) •