15860, 15880, 15894 Winchester Blvd - Addendum and Exhibits 29-30
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: 04/26/2017
ITEM NO: 2
ADDENDUM
DATE: APRIL 25, 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 29 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 21, 2017 and
11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 25, 2017.
Additionally, the Parks and Public Works Department has provided a revised project
information sheet for the project (Exhibit 30).
EXHIBITS:
Previously received under separate cover:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration
Previously received with January 25, 2017 Staff Report:
2. Location Map
PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD/S-16-023, M-16-002, and ND-16-003
DATE: APRIL 25, 2017
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\2017 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\4-26-17\Item 2 - Addendum and Exhibits 29-30.docx 4/25/2017 2:28 PM
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 September 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
Previously received with January 25, 2017 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, 2017 (four pages).
Previously received with January 25, 2017 Desk Item Report:
19. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, Jan uary 24, 2017 and 11:00 a.m.
Wednesday, January 25, 2017 (four pages)
Previously received with March 22, 2017 Staff Report:
20. Communication from the applicant, received February 21, 2017 (misidentified as Exhibit 16
in the March 22, 2017 Staff Report)
Previously received with April 26, 2017 Staff Report:
21. Revised Required Findings and Considerations
22. Revised Conditions of Approval (21 pages)
23. Project Submittal Summary of Changes, received March 14, 2017 (two pages)
24. Project Submittal Summary of Changes – Addendum, received April 7, 2017 (12 pages)
25. February 16, 2017 Neighborhood Meeting Attendees, received February 17, 2017
(two pages)
26. Applicant’s Traffic Consultant Letter, received March 31, 2017 (three pages)
27. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, January 25, 2017 and 11:00
a.m., Friday, April 21, 2017
28. Revised Development Plans, received March 14, 2017 (28 sheets)
PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: 15860-15894 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD/S-16-023, M-16-002, and ND-16-003
DATE: APRIL 25, 2017
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\2017 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\4-26-17\Item 2 - Addendum and Exhibits 29-30.docx 4/25/2017 2:28 PM
Received with this Addendum Report:
29. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 21, 2017 and 11:00 a.m.,
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
30. Revised Project Information Sheet provided by the Parks and Public Works Department,
received April 25, 2017 (five 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
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Jocelyn Puga
From:
Sent
To:
Subject
Dear Planning Commission,
Georgina Van Horn <george_vh@msn.com>
Sunday, April 23, 2017 3:25 PM
Jocelyn Puga
15860,15880, and 15994 Winchester Blvd .
I know this application will be discussed at the April 26 meeting. I am one of the two homes most
Impacted by this project. I am concerned about the massive size of this build Ing and the style so out
of character of the boulevard. The changes made since inception are minor. The size will bring traffic
that will greatly impact everyone living and walking on this street. I know by your comments when last
discussed that you, too, are concerned about safety. There will be dangerous left hand turns. There is
a 25 mile speed limit sign ... most cars go 35-50 miles an hour as they come up the incline towards
Daves Ave. I ask you to consider all this. Thank you I
Sincerely,
Georgina Van Horn
706 Winchester Blvd .
LG 95030
408-395-6740
EXHIBIT 2 9
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Jocelyn Puga
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject
Andrew Spyker <awspyker@gmail.com>
Sunday, April 23, 2017 4:59 PM
Jocelyn Puga; Joel Paulson
15860, 15880, and 15894 Winchester Boulevard Updated Comments
Jocelyn and the Town Of Los Gatos Planning Commission,
We are writing to update the town on our comments of the proposed office building project at 15860, 15880,
and 15894 Winchester Blvd. We have met with the applicant and architect twice since the planning
commission meeting on January 25th. While we speak on behalf of only ourselves, multiple neighbors from the
University Oaks and Winchester attended each meeting. We were happy to see that all neighbors recommended
changes considering the impacts changes could have on all of us.
We thank the applicant for considering some of the impacts of the project, specifically reduction of towering
element heights, heights of roof lines to the north and south, partial mitigation of headlight concerns, relocation
of garage venting, and warmth of materials. The changes have not, yet, addressed all significant concerns
presented by the planning commission and by neighbors at meetings prior and since.
Specifically, we believe the project needs to change to address the following aspects:
Size -More impactful changes should be considered to protect existing residential, improve traffic, and to set
correct precedents for the Winchester corridor.
Safety -The Winchester entrance cannot remain as is. Safety changes must be considered.
Privacy-The parking wall needs to.guarantee zero impact to existing residential. The southern elevation
should not include line of sight into· existing residential.
Security -The garage stairs need to be reworked to provide physical security. The southern buffer needs to be
developed to protect and enhance its immediate neighbors.
Traffic and Parking -The planning commission should have indisputable proof that the added traffic is
supportable at the location. Similarly, that parking will never exceed the need for 128 spaces.
Regarding Previous Issues:
Size
None of the changes have reduced the square footage size of the building nor the parking required to support
this square footage. From the beginning we have been concerned about the size· as the key issue as it is not
consistent with neighboring office buildings, will cause traffic and safety concerns, and is the key visual
detractor of the project.
In discussing larger changes that could have directly affected the size, the applicant has been unwilling to
consider changes that would reduce square footage. Further, parking has been another area the applicant hasn't
been willing to reduce which we believe is a concern and is representative of the problem this project will pose
for local traffic.
1
We discussed widening the footprint of the building reducing the building to a single story (making building
wide drastic improvements of the 35' height on top of above grade parking) with only underground
parking. We were informed that this did not "pencil out" financially for the project.
We discussed making the Shelburn entrance dual ramp similar to 634 N Santa Cruz such that there would be no
traffic concerns for Winchester. We were informed that this might move the traffic concerns. The applicant
also didn't want to consider this option as it would have reduced parking at grade level to account for the ramps.
We discussed dropping the building further by making the parking garage deeper. We were informed that this
would make the Winchester frontage weird as it would make that floor significantly lower than existing
grade. The application also didn't want to consider this option as it would have required a longer ramp which
would have reduced parking.
We noted at the last planning commission meeting that size of this building will set a poor precedent for future
development. Since the last planning commission meeting, two more properties within a block of the property
have transitioned in ways that make this a real consideration. 15814 Winchester has signs indicating that space
is available. Also, the Green Thumb Nursery location has gone up for sale. We ask the planning commission to
consider what this entire stretch of Winchester will look like with not one, but three office buildings of this
massing. Also, as any resident traveling into Los Gatos can attest, traffic from this and future developments
isn't consistent with what this road can handle. Also as noted previously, three office complexes within two
blocks of the site are vacant and/or have leasing available.
Traffic Safety
There have been no improvements for the "at grade" parking traffic that enters and exits on Winchester. We
continue to believe that left turns are unacceptable at this location due to poor visibility, proximity to Dave's
elementary walkers and bicyclers, and use by infrequent visitors who will not take the same care as the five
drivers that currently use the existing driveways. In meetings with the applicant, we heard that they do not want
to restrict left turns out as a) they do not believe signage or partial pork chops will be paid attention to by all
drivers b) they do not believe that there is a problem for sight lines and c) not being able to have left turns
would make their project less attractive to potential tenants. We believe this is an issue that must be remedied
before approval . VC. Kane and C . Hanssen agreed in the last meeting. We will send a follow-up presentation
on why we believe the sight lines to be a definite problem.
"At grade" Parking
The new plans have a change intended to solve the concerns with a) head-in parking aligned perfectly to point
at our home and b) elevated parking above our driveways where kids play. Specifically, the screen has been
replaced with a 42" masonry wall which would block headlights and be a safety barricade. Unfortunately, 42"
is likely to not be sufficient to satisfy the concerns with headlights. California codes (VH 24400) allow for
legal headlights to be up to 54" and our vehicle has headlights at 42" which would result in headlight overshot
of the wall when a similar vehicle pulled away from the wall. We do not believe the replacement wall yet
protects our existing residential use. We continue to recommend removal or reconfiguration of parking that is
directly facing existing residential .
Safety and Security
We mentioned previously how there is a concern with the 10' buffer "dead zone" between our existing masonry
wall and the start of elevated parking. We believe this is a concern based on evidence of how this supports non-
planned vagrant use when this was not addressed at the Palo Alto medical office complex. We also have
concerns about the securing of the stairway within this 10' buffer immediately neighboring our property
2
line. The applicant's architect stated incorrectly in the last planning commission meeting that the stairway was
outside .of the 1 O' buffer in response to a similar concern expressed by C. Badame. We heard from the applicant
that it would be hard to secure the stairways and that only the garage entry door at the bottom of the stairs could
be guaranteed to be secured. We have suggested the possible removal of the "dead zone" by tying the proposed
project into our existing masonry wall, something recommended during a University Oaks HOA board
meeting. We also believe this would also allow for 10' of greenery planting space that would be more at level
with the elevated building helping shield second story views of the project. The applicant hasn't pursued any
changes with r egards to this concern .
Furthermore, there has been no clarification of how parking outside of office hours and during weekends would
be secured. This is a concern due parking for Vasona Park and cut-through foot traffic.
Regarding New Issues:
Priva cy
While the new design softens the impact to the southern elevation, the architect took the opportunity during the
design to improve the design in a way that creates a new impact on existing residential neighbors . While the
original plan called for no substantial overlooks of existing residential, the new plan has expansive floor to
ceiling windows at the highest vantage point directly neighboring residential . The applicant informed us that
this was added as a "comer office". and needed in office buildings.
We believe this to be exactly opposite to the "protect existing residential areas from adjacent nonresidential
uses" guidance in our town's general plan. This comer of the building is directly adjacent to residential
bedroom windows. All trees on the property that would have shielded privacy are scheduled for removal and
new trees are currently planned only at below "existing grade" parking meaning there would be zero privacy
protection. We also believe this new comer of glass would expose the entire second floor of nighttime lighting
to our existing bedroom windows.
Traffic
We have additional reasons to be concerned about traffic. In review of the traffic report, we find that the three
buildings used in comparison are inconsistent with the office project's intended use.
475 Alberto Way has had a vacancy sign out front for some time suggesting less than 100%
occupancy. Additionally, the open space visible inside is inconsistent with the per tenant square footage of tech
usage. 975 University Ave is the home to many very small companies. With each small company having a
separat e reception and common areas, it would be far less populated than a single tech tenant. Finally, 16795
Lark Ave is again multiple tenants (8) which would. be less populated than a single tech tenant.
We also find that traffic flow concerns are less of a concern for these buildings as 475 sits at the end of a road
with a dedicated driveway requiring no turns, 16795 has a traffic light, and 975 has five exits from the parking
lots surrounding the complex with no residential on street parking.
Parking
In the previous meeting, the architect for the project said "typical occupancy rate is I 00 square foot per
occupant, is about 300 people that works in the building" and ''the density of the people in the building would
be about 300 if fully occupied". The applicant later clarified in the meeting and in email that this was a
maximum per building code. The applicant has provided estimates in email that support the current number of
planned parking spots.
3
In meetings with the applicant, they would not give us a guarantee that for every tenant they consider there
would be absolutely enough parking. We understand such a guarantee is hard and painful if incorrect, but as a
neighbor it is unclear if there will be a need for street parking to support potential tenants. We ask the planning
commission to get a guarantee as there isn't sufficient overflow parking for a building of this size.
Thank you for your time!
Andrew and Amy Spyker
708 Winchester Blvd
Andrew Spyker (awspyker@gmail.com)
4
(/) -z. Oo I"-~--<!) !!? c (/) % ('o.J s <!) u..Z Oz a:: ~.5 ~ 4 Oo... \-
"O
Q) a.
Cl. ro
E
en
Q)
c: ·--
·-(/)
Sight lines distance on street (75 feet)
What does 75 feet mean?
Estimate line of sight to be 75 feet
Car routinely go over 35 miles per hour as evidenced by VC. Kane on 1/25
40 miles per hour= 59 ft I sec
• 75 ft = 1.3 seconds
45 miles per hour= 66 ft I sec
e 75 ft = 1.2 seconds
Note that this is with ZERO visibility {couldn't even look "behind" the parked cars)
What is the correct distance needed for safety?
• Would like the town's help, but found this on CA DOT:
At signalmd intenectiODI the values for-
cornc:r sight distmllell given in
Table 405 .lA should alto be applied
whenever posslDlc. Even though traffic
flows UC designed to move at separate
times, UIWlticipllfed conflicb CID occur
dw: to violation of signal, right turns on
red, malfunction of the aianal, or use of
flasbina red/yellow mode.
Table 405.1A
Comer Sight Distance
(7 -112 Second Criteria)
Design Speed Comer Sight
(mph) Distance (ft}
2S 27.5
30 330
35 38.5
40 4"°
4S 495 so 550
SS 60S
60 660
6.5 71 .5
70 770
WMre nltrtc:dw c:olldltlHa edit,
mntlar t• those Ultal hi
Inda 405.l(l)(a), the minimum valae
for corner lllght dlmnu:e at botll
llpallDCI and undpabed latenedlon1
1hall be eqaid CO the ltuppinE sl&ht
dlltance •• livea In Table 201.1,
meanred • previoallf dacrlbe4.
Table 201.1
Sight Distance Standards
Deaip speect<1> Stopping(2) Passing
(mph) (ft) (ft)
10 so
IS 100
20 125 800
2S lSO 9SO
30 200 1,100
3S 2SO l,300
40 300 l,SOO
4S 360 l,6SO
so 430 1,800
SS .500 1,9.50
~
0
LO
~
I
"'O
CD
CD c.
"' "'O
CD ......,
"' 0 a.
"'C
Q)
"'C
CD
CD c: ......,
..c:
O> ·-en ......
0
CD c: ·-....J
~ 0 LO N
I
"'C
Q)
Q) c..
CJ)
~ -Q)
~ ·--
Jocelyn and the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission.
Re; Proposed office complex 1586015880, 15894 Winchester Blvd
I am writing this letter as a concerned homeowner at University Oaks Condominium Complex.
My concerns with this proposed office complex are as follows:
Traffic study
The traffic study that was done by the developer does not apply to this planned project. The statistical
references were for buildings much different than the proposed project.
Those of us living in this same block can testify that current traffic makes it unsafe and hazardous trying
to pull out onto Winchester just about any time of day. There is limited visibility and many school age
children on bikes and skateboards add to the safety equation.
Trees
The trees that are proposed being preserved on the site are in danger of death. Damage to root systems
from construction and the disturbances of soil from new pavement and ·concrete placed over the root
systems can lead to a death that may take 5 years after the original damage has occurred. Over 90% of
the root system is in the top 3 feet often extending a distance equaling two-three times the trees
height. If these trees are being used as a "visual screen" that may be a very temporary fix. Once the
trees are dead there will be no screen and no one will be there to replace the trees with ones of the
same size, if replacement is done at all.
Occupancy
It is assumed by the developer that because of "vacation, sick days" that the amount of vehicles
supporting the staff should be less than 300 people that may be employed at this site.
Are these full time and part time staff that overlap hours? We all know someone who works in high tech
or worse yet a start up that has a project due. No one "Takes a vacation or calls in sick". All 300 vehicles
will be trying to find a place to park on Winchester, University and side streets when the facility parking
has filled up.
Size
This planned project is too big. This is the elephant in the room no one is doing anything about. Valley
Oak Partners of course do not want to change the square footage as it cuts back on their profit. This
entire planned project needs to be downsized.
Karen Vincent
711 University Ave, Los Gatos RECEIVED
APR 2 4 2017
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
Engineering Division
April 25, 2017
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM: 15860, 15880, and 15894 W)nchester Boulevard; APN: 529-11-013, 038 and 040
Architecture & Site Application S-16--023
Subdivision Application M-16--002
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.
PROPERlY OWNER: South Beach Partners, UC/Cumulus Capital Holdings, LLC
APPLICANT: Valley Oak Partners -Doug Rich
Q: Where is the development project?
A: The proposed development project is located at the southeast corner of Winchester
Boulevard and Shelburne Way.
Q: What is the proposed use?
A: The proposed development would demolish three existing houses and a second unit, and
construct 30,070 square feet of office building.
Q: Would the proposed development Increase traffic?
A: The proposed development of 30,070 square feet of general office would generate more
vehicle trips than what currently occurs with the existing three houses.
Q: Would the additional traffic trigger an environmental analysis and a traffic Impact
analysis?
A: Yes. In accordance with Town's Traffic Impact Polley, a traffic Impact analysis (TIA) is
required for any private development projects that are expected to add 20 or more trips in
the AM or PM peak hours.
Q: How are AM and PM peak hours selected for any given intersection?
A: The Town's traffic consultants conduct traffic counts between 7 :00 AM and 9:00 AM and
between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM during 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 selected as the peak hours.
Q: What is the estimated traffic increase?
A: It is estimated the proposed project would create a net increase of 303 additional trips per
weekday, Including 38 trips during the AM peak hour and 46 trips during the PM peak hour.
Parks and Public Works Department • Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030
408.399.Snl • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca ~EXHIBIT 8 ·O
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
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?
A: A proposed medical office of the same size would generate 32 additional AM peak hour
trips and 58 additional PM peak-hour trips, and a total of 754 additional daily trips, than the
prop.osed 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 (GP)
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.
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 duri ng the PM peak hour.
Six of these 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: Would prohibiting left turn movements at the project's Winchester driveway improve
traffic safety?
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: Based on the existing site distance, number of trips and the two-way left turn lane, these
movements can be made safely.
Q: Would there be negative Impact as a result of prohibiting left turn movements at the
project's Winchester driveway?
A: It is anticipated that motorists would utilize alternative routes to access the project
driveway on Winchester. The shortest routes available would include making a U-turn on
Winchester or turning either left or right into the nearest side streets and then making a U-
turn to return to the driveway. Either option is not desirable and may not be welcome by
the nearby residents.
Q: Would it be beneficial to vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles if a traffic signal were
to be Installed at the intersection of Shelburne and Winchester?
A: A traffic signal, if installed properly, should facilitate the crossing of pedestrians and vehicles
safely; however, It may also have negative impacts, such as increased traffic delay, if it is not
installed at an appropriate location. There are standard guidelines providing guidance as to
whether a traffic signal should be recommended for installation. The guidelines include
criteria such as vehicle and pedestrian volumes as well as accident history. This intersection
does not meet any of the recommended guidelines for installation of traffic signal. In
addition, due to the close proximity of the Daves Avenue Elementary School, It is
recommended that the pedestrians should be encouraged to cross Winchester Boulevard at
Daves Avenue where there are crossing guards assisting with pedestrian crossings.
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 TOM
(Transportation Demand ·Management) plan would be required forthe development. The
TOM 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 bicydes within the
underground parking garage. In addition, the project would be required to install bicycle
racks near the visitor entrance. In addition, a new bicycle lane will be installed along the
project's Winchester frontage.
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 a
new bicycle lane for northbound Winchester.
• Construction of a detached sidewalk along the project frontage.
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
• 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: 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.
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 than 4 feet.
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.
Parks and Public Works Department • Engineering Division • 41 Miles Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030
408.399.5771 • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca
j:::I > _J ~ ~ w I r-ti) w I u • z
t-1
~ A'V/'\ 3N~n813HS
I I
¥
I -' I ~ ~ -"'>
I I "" ~
LI ~-....
lU
I g
I