16212 LG Blvd - Staff Report Exh.9-10AFrom: Wallerstein, Donna [mailto:Donna.Wall erstein@hhs.sccgov.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 12:40 PM
To: Council
(
Subject: proposed development on the corner of Los Gatos Blvd and Shannon Road
The proposed development of 11 homes perched on less than one acre of
land, 2 blocks from Fisher Middle School and Van Meter Elementary
School is nothing short of ludicrous. That very busy commercial street
continues to add more businesses and more housing with no concern for
the safety of our children. Traffic at that corner has been absolutely
horrendous ever since the Honda dealership closed and multiple· homes
were built on the site. And the additional housing and commercial
development at the corner of Blossom Hill and LG Blvd is equally to
blame. At school beginning and end and at rush hour, one can barely
navigate the traffic light and OFTEN there is no crossing guard to help
children get across safely.
If you agree to this proposal , then it should be the Town Council 's
responsibility to guarantee that there will be a crossing guard at that point
AND at Van Meter daily, morning and afternoon for at least 30 minutes
before school begins and 45 minutes after the school day ends. I would
challenge each of you to take a turn at the job at least once before signing
off on any further development so near to the schools.
Los Gatos is rapidly becoming an undesirable place to live due to the
congestion and traffic and blatant overdevelopment.
Sincerely,
Donna Wallerstein
Los Gatos
EXHIBIT 9
r
On Jan 28, 2016, at 1:26PM, Geoff LaMotte <geoff.lamotte@ gmail.com> wrote:
Barbara, Marico, Marcia, Steven and Rob,
After reviewing the II Vicinato housing development MND, our family and neighbors are very
concerned with the apparent attempt to justify a revenue-grossing development while
underestimating the actual impact it has on the community. We ask the Town Council to reject
the proposal in the good interest of Los Gatos residents who have been patient with many other
recent constructions.
Personally, my wife and I live on Shannon Road, and previously lived on Nino. We experienced
the pains of construction from the LG I Grant Bishop townhouse developments and the impact
on the neighborhood traffic so can attest to how much it statistically changes the surrounding
area when high density housing is introduced. This is coming after the Caldwell development
and preceding completion of the project at the old Swanson Ford property (LG Boulevard and
LG-Almaden Road).
We are unequivocally opposed to the ll Vicinato development for the following reasons:
-The Laurel Mews study is clearly outdated. Anyone that lives in this area and tries to get
anywhere during key times (7 -1 Oam, 4-7pm -again, the study minimizes the extended commute
hours reflective of Silicon Valley and documented in length by several commissions -example
news release here) understands that we have serious gridlock on Los Gatos Boulevard and in
particular this intersection with Shannon. During an already overwhelming morning commute, it
can take us 5 minutes to exit onto Los Gatos Boulevard from Shannon Road from our house on
Amanda Lane.
-This continues an alarming trend of approved high density housing (Caldwell/Kennedy, Grant
Bishop, Swanson Ford) in an already heavily congested area that contains 2 elementary schools
and a middle school. School class sizes are already increasing and over capacity.
-It changes the zoning of the Wine Shop property from commercial to residential without
explanation.
-Safety: With the introduction of Orange Theory fitness , Yoga Source, and the new townhomes
diagonally across the street from the Wine Shop, there is significant risk in this area as cars park
in the Wine Shop parking lot while others are commuting through and children are walking to
school. This congestion is already a problem, so why compound it and not fix it instead?
I grew up in Saratoga, where the town council did an excellent job over the years protecting lot
sizes and minimizing developments that would hurt the integrity and quality of life of its citizens.
I am hopeful that Los Gatos will reject the 11 Vicinato project that compounds existing problems
with traffic flow and safety at the intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard and Shannon Road.
Thanks, Geoff LaMotte
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Mami-
Tamara Bodner <tbodner@gmail.com >
Monday, February 01, 2016 12:07 PM
Marni Mose le y
New Housing Development at Los Gatos Blvd and Shannon
I hope all is well. I am reaching out to you in regard s to the new proposed deve lopment which I think is called
II Vicinato to replace the Wine Depot . Can you please add my letter in to the pile of residents NOT supporting
it. The parcel is too small for the proposed number of units. In addition, traffic, parking and congestion in that
area is already way to high . Kids traveling to Fisher and Van Meter are already at risk to accidents . We have
had so many kids on bikes already hit by cars this year. (Unfortunately most go unreported because there is no
need to get the police involved .) Thankfully no major injuries or deaths have occured but it is only a matter of
time if we continue to add more traffic into these already congested areas . I would rather see wider streets,
sidewalks and highly visible bike lanes in this intersection to encourage kids to walk to school safely. Not
more cars and traffic and congestions.
Lastly, the numbers used to calculate the new students in the schools is underestimated. In the Linda Avenue
development, in the 6 completed homes, we have 9 students in the school. Not sure how they calculated only
8-12 for this development. People move to Los Gatos for the schools . They do not care about their home size.
Thank you for li stening and adding my letter to the nonsupporters.
Tam ara
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Moseley,
Tiffany Papageorge <tiffany@papageorge.com >
Tuesday, February 02, 2016 4:41 PM
Marni Moseley
II Vicinato
The new proposed development "II Vicinato" has come to our attention. I am writing you on my behalf and also on
behalf of my husband, Paul. We are astounded by the high impact building that is going on in Los Gatos. It seems as
though the city planners aren't driving the same streets as we are or that their children aren't in the same public
schools. The other day, before rush hour, it took me nearly a half an hour to get down town from lower Kennedy Road .
We don't have the infrastructure in our little town to handle the amount of cars these high-density housing projects are
burdening our town with. Our schools are beyond full capacity. Why are these projects allowed through? Why is an acre
of land on an already busy corner where school four schools will be impacted by the additional population and traffic
even being considered? We are saddened by what is happening here. We respectfully ask you and the city planners to
think of the bigger picture. When can we go on a building moratorium and stop building tens of houses 4-5 bedroom
houses on no lot. It isn't good for any of us .
Thanks for your consideration,
Tiffany Papageorge
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tony Nanez <tnanez@gmail.com>
Wednesday, February 03, 2016 4:40 PM
Marni Moseley
town vs city
being a resident of LG since 1975 ,there's been a lot of changes and mostly for the good but;
as oflate the addition of so many new residents for the obvious tax revenue, has transformed our town
into a CITY(not good.)congestion in and around our schools is dangerous to our students and to add to this
by building on shannon and los gatos blvd will only add to the frustration of leaving our home to shop in LG .
were not even shopping downtown unless we can go at day time and many of our friends feel the same way!
we think the small businesses downtown will eventually suffer .its actually more convenient shopping at the
malls
per our out of town friends that were shopping here.please reconsider the amount or residents proposed for that
less than acre property.
thanks for your understanding and consideration
tony nanez
Tony Nanez
tnanez@gmail.com
1
From: Johanes Swenberg [mailto:johanes swenberg@yahoo.com]
Sent : Saturday, February 06, 2016 3:02 PM
To: Council
Subject: Ill Vicinato
Dear town council
I am writing about the ill Vicinato development planned on Los Gatos Blvd.
unfortunately I can not attend the town meeting this month where this development will be discussed .
My input is simply that the current plan for 11 homes on one acre at this specific location should not be
approved . I very much approve of development for the town. However the plan for this location will
add to an already congested area and may put students, and other members of our community at risk.
I strongly encourage additional studies to pursue other options for this location . I believe the traffic
study done for the site is outdated and should be questioned to its current validity.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Johanes swenberg
Resident on Mary way
Los Gatos
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tanya Lattner <tonic@nondot.org >
Friday, Feb ruary 05, 2016 2:03 PM
Counci l; Planning
Marni Moseley
IL Vicinity Feedback from resident in the neighborhood
Town Council & Planning Commission,
My name is Tanya Lattner and I live on W Chiquita Ave . I am very concerned about the proposed development, IL
Vicinato, at the current location of the Artisan Wine Depot . I am not sure I can attend the town meeting so I hope that
my comments may be taken into consideration through email. I hope I have addressed this email to the right people.
First, I feel the density of the housing and style do not fit in with the look and feel of our wonderful town. Because of this
density the setback from the road will be decreased . I strongly feel that at the bare minimum, the number of housing
units should be reduced . There are also no row housing on this side of LG Blvd and it is surrounded by single family
homes. I believe that it should stay single family housing with adequate space between the homes for a good quality of
life for residents. For a 1 acre sized lot, 4-5 single family homes should be the maximum. This would allow for 10,000 sqft
lots and that is in line with the lot sizes in the neighborhood .
The traffic study that was done for this development seems outdated. This lot is currently used for parking by Yoga
Source and they have a large and growing client base. Removing their use of the lot would cause a drastic increase in
parking in the neighborhood. Orange Theory also has recently opened and because their parking lot is also small which
forces clients to park in the neighborhood. So you have 2 strong and growing businesses with no real parking options. In
addition, this lot is used by parents when picking up their children from school. If you force them out, they will be
looking for street parking as well and traffic around the schools will be even worse . The traffic study does not address.
these concerns or the actual increase from the Laurel Mews development.
This is also a strange intersection and heavily used by children walking to/from school. There needs to be a plan in place
to handle this pedestrian traffic during construction so all children are safe. Shannon Rd is already a potentially
dangerous road with no clear sidewalks and many speeders. We should avoid making it any more unsafe.
I strongly feel that the development is the wrong fit for our community but I understand that some development will
probably happen . I would much rather see the lot broken into 2 single family homes on the Shannon Rd side, and the LG
Blvd side remain some commercial property (maybe the wine store could even stay). Something that doesn't increase
the population of our schools , doesn't drastically increase traffic to the business, and doesn't change the parki ng
situation too much from how it currently is. Ideally it would be a business that the local residents would want to walk to
and shop at. Solutions to the parking problems need to be addressed. Perhaps an underground parking structure could
be done to keep Yoga Source still parking there and also allow a business on top that doesn't require much parking.
However, if a residential development is the only route. Please reduce the density and allow something that is in line
with what the neighborhood currently has and looks like.
Thank you,
Tanya Lattner
1
16212 Los Gatos Blvd.
From: lazykrancho <lazykrancho@aol.com>
To: mmoseley <mmoseley@losgatosca.gov>; lazykrancho <lazykrancho@aol.com>
Subject: 16212 Los Gatos Blvd.
Date: Fri. Feb 5, 201611:03 am
Attachments: LG-16 Shannon Realignment.pdf (2757K)
Dear Marni Moseley,
I hope all is well!
Page 1 of2
For what it is worth, I have lived off of Shannon Road, and in an adjacent
neighborhood, for over twenty years . I have always thought the town of Los
Gatos would correct the Los Gatos Blvd/Shannon Road intersection.
When the new development was proposed at Roberts and Los Gatos Blvd (at
the old Honda site), I thought for sure the Town would fix this intersection . The
Public Works D irector (at that time) stated that the i ntersection worked
normally . I was quite flabbergasted by that statement.
Anyway, my point is th is : Every day I see violations at that intersection. Cars
turning right from Shannon Road onto Northbound Los Gatos Blvd do not stop.
People unfamiliar with the intersection do not know where to turn, and often go
through the red light at Roberts that is only a very short distance from the
Shannon Road light (both Southbound & Northbound Los Gatos Blvd .) Cars
run the "No Right Turn On Red" at Roberts Road onto Southbound Los Gatos
Blvd . Cars from the Yoga Source drive the wrong way to get to the opening at
·Magnesson Loop to go Northbound on Los Gatos Blvd. Pedestrians crossing ,
on the East side of Los Gatos Blvd at Shannon, heading Southbound , are
continually running for their lives as cars turn Left from Southbound Los Gatos
Blvd onto Shannon Road .
I won't even get into the number of pedestrians I see jaywalking/running across
Los Gatos Blvd to get to either s ide (the cross walk at Shannon and Los Gatos
Blvd does not serve the Yoga Source and automobile businesses on the West
side of Los Gatos Blvd).
Please see the attached document above. It shows a rough outline of how this
intersection can be improved before we start building homes on the last piece
of land that would give us all a chance to fix this area and to actually make it
shine.
https://mail.aol.com/webmail -std/en-us/PrintMessage 02/05/2016
162 12 Los Gatos Blvd. Page 2 of2
I noticed the date to respond to the MND has changed t o February 4th, 2016 at
5pm. However, the mailing I received and the notice at the Library stated it was
to be February 11th, 20 16. Could you please confirm that my co rrespondence
will be accepted (the attached document and this email) ??
Thank you for your time and assistance.
I dislike bothering developers and other folks about their projects, but this
intersection needs to be fixed for the benefit and safety of the whole community
as well as visitors to this area . Changing the zoning from C to R is a major
concession.
https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 02/05/2016
J
·I·
'
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
l
I
l
I
I
i
I
I
On Feb 7, 2016, at 10 :4 1 AM, Ken Hoffman <kenlhoffman@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Spector and town council members,
As home owners on Robie Lane we are writing to support our adamant opposition to II
Vicinato, the proposed new housing development on the northeast corner of Shannon
Rd and Los Gatos Blvd.
The proposed eleven single family residences on less than an acre would detrimentally
impact the already fraught traffic and safety conditions that already exist in the
immediate area.
At present there is a high volume of traffic with peaks at at school arrival and departure
times as well as during the weekday commuting hours. The high volume of cars
presently on the road already negatively impacts progress thru the already long lights at
the corners of Shannon and Roberts Roads. We are often forced to turn right onto
Shannon and cut over to Blossom Hill on Cherry Avenue, impacting our neighbors in
the opposite direction.
In addition there is a very high volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic from Fisher
students primarily. More cars puts those environmentally friendly commuters at even
greater risk.
According to Hexagon Consultants "The site plan for the proposed
residential development indicates that vehicular access to alltt dwelling
units would be provided from Shannon Road. The existing driveway on Los
Gatos Boulevard would be eliminated. The existing driveway on Shannon
Road, which is close to the eastern edge of the parcel, would be replaced by
a new driveway that would be farther from Los Gatos Boulevard." As we
have stated there are kids walking and riding to school each day along this stretch of
Shannon Road. Additional cars coming out of this driveway onto Shannon is not adding
to the safety of our children. In addition, residents can scarcely get out of Robie Lane
onto Shannon Road (West) at certain times due to the long line of cars already waiting
on Shannon to turn onto Los Gatos Blvd or go through to Roberts. The proposal would
make this stretch even more miserable. Shannon Road is terribly dangerous for our
children as it is without adding any new negative factors (It is a long stretch of road
without speed bumps that cars speed on constantly; It is overused and not kept in good
condition; Major parts of it have no sidewalks). Los Gatos Blvd. is painfully congested
already at commute times.
In reading the traffic analysis report, we are unsure as to why Hexagon Consultants is
comparing trip generation for the housing development using a site utilized for auto
sales. That isn't currently what is at the site so why utilize it to say that a housing
development would generate less daily trips?
There are two businesses (Orange Theory and Yoga Source) that require more parking
than their lots can handle. The current lot that the II Vicinato development is proposed
for is partially utilized as parking for Yoga Source. Where are the Yoga Source cars
going to park when this development 'goes up? If rules are changed so parking is
allowed on Shannon where currently parking isn't allowed during the day it would be
quite dangerous. It is difficult enough when cars are parked on the Robie Lane side of
Shannon to ease out to get a good enough line of site to safely continue on Shannon to
Los Gatos Blvd. If cars were allowed to par}c on the dpposite,sjde of Shannon it would
be dangerous to the children riding bikes to school each day. At present, residents of
Robie Lane are fed up with Orange Theory business clients parking on the street and are
applying for a residents only parking sign.
We have to think of all of these variables when considering these proposals.
We have overburdened schools as it is. Our local schools are at or over capacity. P.26 of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration says "New student g~neratiori by the
proposed project wo1,l].d range from eight t~ 12 new students total for grades
K-l~· ~e propos~d pr;oject would be required t;o pay e;l~velopment impact
fees to cover, its increw~g.tal share of future cla~sroom ~evelopment.
The,re(or.e, a\tlt~ugh. soll).e of the sc~ools to which the proposed pr9ject
would send students are at or over capacity, the proposed .p~oj~ct's payment
of the school development impact fees would reduce the impacts to schools
to a le.ss th~ ~·gnifi~t level." Th~s~ ar.e e.le.vep. four and five bedroom homes
... We're not .~ure how,th~.ntnnber-of 8-.12 children was d~rived fr9m this study. These
numbers don't add up. How we can keep saying that each new development doesn't
significantly impact our schools when we obviously have a problem? The solution is not
as easy as developj~g fu,~r.e classrooms either as can pe ~videnced by the rebuilding and
additions to our elem~Q.t~uy schopls in. the r,ecentyears. We.would still need an
adequ~te plan to increase ~pacitY at the schools with th~ development impact fees .
Please cpnsider our cm;nments and views about how this inappropriately located
development affects O\lr Los Gatos town qualizy of life.
Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Nicole Cushing and Ken Hoffman
16322.Robie Lane, Los Gatos, CA
95032
408 402 3645
Marni Mosel ey
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mami:
Scott Sumner <e inmaligss@gmail.com>
Wednesday, February 10, 2016 1:05 PM
Marni Moseley
Initial Study and Mitigate Negative Declaration for 16212 Los Gatos Boulevard
The public comment period for the proposed Negative Declaration for 16212 LGB expires today at 5:00
pm . According to town.los-gatos.ca.us , written comments should be submitted to the Community Development
Department, and they list your email address for questions. I hope that emailing you before 5:00pm today counts as
having submitted written comments to the Community Development Department; please forward my message to the
appropriate inbox.
I have lived at 16696 Magneson Loop since April 2004 and love our neighborhood (my home is on the same block
as this proposed development). Our environs are slowly turning into dense-pack ho using , as already evidenced by
the 22 homes on a small city block at Laurel Mews , directly across the street. 11 more dense-pack homes at 16212
LGB would only further this trend . As lucrative as this would be for the developer (an d as Laurel Mews surely was),
I am opposed to smashing so many new residences into such a small area.
I know Bay Area land is extremely valuable; I also know that many nearby communities are permitting development
that is very reminiscent of this proposal. I'm hoping that Los Gatos can buck this trend and keep some semblance
of charm and beauty within the Town limits.
I hope to attend the 24-Feb-16 Town Council meeting where this will be discussed .
Many thanks ,
Scott Sumner
16696 Magneson Loop
From: Elke Billingsley [mailto:elke.billingsley@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 4:28 PM
To: Marni Moseley; Council
Subject: "II Vicinato" proposed development
To Whom It May Concern:
As a neighbor in the Kennedy North area, I am disappointed to learn of the high-density housing
proposal at the comer of Shannon Road and Los Gatos Boulevard, currently named "II Vicinato ".
My concerns are several if the development is built as proposed: additional students at
already-full nearby schools, an increase in already-heavy traffic and the scale of the houses
does not fit with the character of the town of Los Gatos.
Van Meter and Blossom Hill Elementary along with Fisher Middle School, are currently at a
peak in the number of students being served. Where will additional students attend? I believe
the number of residents is underestimated for the 11 homes proposed. To say some houses
would have no children in them seems inaccurate as many new residents are moving specifically
to attend local schools.
The intersection is currently very busy with traffic and pedestrian and bicycle use on a daily
basis. The height and setback of the buildings looks imposing on a comer and I think would
greatly impact the traffic flow and safety especially for pedestrians (adults and middle-schoolers
alike). Using a traffic study from before the Laurel Mew project was built is not an accurate
view of the current traffic in the area. The parking lot is currently used heavily between Yoga
Source overflow parking and middle school parents using it as a nearby drop-off and pick-up
point twice a day. It is unclear where these vehicles would go with the loss of this lot. Shannon
Road does not currently allow parking on weekdays, so the new residents in the development
would likely have difficulty fitting their own vehicles within the limited spaces, much less those
of visitors.
After looking at the proposed plans, the scale of the project seems too big for the property. The
Cannon Group's review of the plans seems critical of the current design -in size, style and
space. I would love to see a development proposal that is smaller in scale or perhaps not
residential at all. A retail store or other commercial development might be less of an impact to
the area but provide needed services or goods that we don't currently have nearby.
1 appreciate your work on behalf of the town and hope a modified version can be attained to
please more residents. I realize it is not to the scale of the "North 40" but I think we have had
plenty of "in-fill" on the east side of town in the last few years. ·
Sincerely,
Elke Billingsley
Marni Mosel ey
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it may concern,
Linda Toeniskoetter < lindatoeniskoetter@gmail.com >
Wednesday, February 10, 2016 5:21 PM
Marni Moseley; remodel@theclublg .com
In support of The Club at Los Gatos remodel
As a resident of the town of Los Gatos and a member ofThe Club at Los Gatos , I would like to officially voice
my support for The Club remodel project moving forward quickly and seamlessly. This health club has been
around for quite some time, and new ownership's desire to update and remodel is welcomed by all. The
renovation will be a beautiful addition to downtown Los Gatos which will have positive impact on the town as a
whole.
Sincerely,
Linda Toeniskoetter
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Moseley,
sgilmour@gemed.com
Thursday, February 11, 2016 3:37 PM
Marni Moseley
Comments re: "II Vicinato" housing project (Shannon/Los Gatos Blvd .)
I wanted to submit a comment regarding the above referenced proposed housing project as I will be unable to
attend the meeting scheduled for February 24th. While I understand that Los Gatos is required to add housing
units, I don 't believe this is the ideal location for such dense housing. With the townhouses front doors
directly facing Los Gatos Blvd., with no shoulder at that location, exactly where do expect delivery trucks to
park? If they were to stop right there it will create a major hazard as vehicles try to turn right off of Shannon
onto Los Gatos Blvd . With all the school children walking in that area, it is simply not worth the risk.
Thank you for reading my comment,
Susan Gilmour
16460 E. La Chiquita Ave .
Los Gatos
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ms. Moesely,
Molly Sauter <sauter_ca@comcast.net>
Thursday, February 11, 2016 4:00 PM
Marni Moseley
Comments on the II Vicinato Development
I am a resident of Los Gatos and would like to provide an observation regarding the accuracy and completeness
of the environmental document prepared for the II Vicinato Development project.
The environmental document states that the development would not have a substantial inverse impact on a
scenic vista because the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan does not identify scenic vistas in or from the
vicinity of the project site.
I disagree with this statement. The General Plan states that "Los Gatos is located at the base of the Santa Cruz
Mountains and is surrounded by view of the these mountains, particularly the Sierra Azul ridge. Major streets
heading north-south in Los Gatos have views of the ridge to the south. The General Plan also states that scenic
resources are an important part of Los Gatos ' identity, the Town sets forth policies that are intended to preserve
and protect them.
Now that the story polls are being erected, it is very clear that the II Vicinato Development will substantially
block the view of the Sierra Azul ridge when driving into town on Los Gatos Blvd (major street heading south
in Los Gatos). I believe the the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan is clearly against any such development
that does not preserve and protect the view of the Sierra Azul ridge, which has been identified in the General
Plan as a scenic vista.
Regards,
Molly Sauter
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tricia Blue <trb@bluesroof.com>
Friday, February 12, 2016 10:19 AM
Marni Moseley
16212 Los Gatos Blvd
I would like to voice my objection to the proposed residential project for this corner. There is already very congested
traffic at that corner which is tricky in its own right. The before school and after school traffic is very bad, both vehicles
and pedestrians. Please do not add to it by putting in more residences on the corner which will add cars trying to get in
and out of the traffic.
Tricia Blue
16456 Englewood Ave
Los Gatos, CA 95032
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Moseley,
Amir Segev <s_amir_@hotmail.com >
Friday, February 12, 2016 11 :07 AM
Marni Moseley
Planned Development Project at lG Blvd and Shannon
My name is Amir Segev and I am a los Gatos resident. I am writing to you this morning regarding the apparent planned
development at the lot on the Shannon and lG Blvd intersection and would like to take the opportunity to express my
feelings about it. I will say right away that I'm not against development -I am not an extremist that opposes natural
development of our great town and I am not automatically opposing land owners and developers from coming together
in new initiatives. That said-my kids live here . My son rides his bikes every day along Shannon Rd on his way to school,
and this ride is already terribly dangerous . The thought of that junction and the way it will look like when additional
home are added to it, with the traffic and the hazards that come with it makes me cringe. Driving through this junction
every morning on the way to work is already feeling like a scene from a big city traffic jam, which is so frustrating to
everybody. They have just erected posts on the lot to mark things up , which did exactly what it's supposed to do-it
drove home how crowded, out-of-proportion, and misplaced this type of project will be . I'm sure you are well aware
that our schools are exploding and unfortunately the property taxes we are paying are not really making their way back
to them. Adding so many families to this area will only worsen the situation.
We all came to live in los Gatos for the very simple and obvious reason-it offers a good quality of life that affords
spacious and flowing atmosphere. I am absolutely certain that approving such a crowded and elaborate development
will betray everything the town stands for in terms of what it claims to be. I looked at the los Gatos official website and
found a very telling description of the town: "Situated within the largest metropolitan area of northern California and
closely tied to Silicon Valley, Los Gatos con tinues to retain its small town image ... ". 1 hope you will agree with me that
approving a plan to crowd 11 units into a lot that is smaller than one acre is an ultimate example for turning away from the town's
own view of itself and betrays the best interests of existing resident s.
M s. Moseley-your role carries a great responsibility and I'm sure you feel that weight on your shoulders. I'm also sure it's hard to
be between a rock and a hard place when development and potential taxes and revenue collide with the need to maintain the
town's spirit and quality of living. I hope you and your team will have the best interests of your neighbors and make sure Lo s Gatos is
not changing while moving forward.
Thank you for your consideration, I hope you will do the right thing,
Best Regards,
Amir Segev
(415) 515-6657
1
From : Jessica Richter [mailto :jessbri cht@gm ai l.com ]
Sent : Friday, February 12, 2016 3 :33 PM
To : Planning
Subject: Proposed Development: II Vicinato" 16212 Los Gatos Boulevard
on the corner of Shannon Road
Dear Planning Commission,
I am a Los Gatos resident and live on the corner of Hilow Court and Shannon Rd , at 101 Hi low Court. I
wholeheartedly object to the proposed development "II Vicinito" at 16212 Los Gatos Blvd. I ag ree with
the concerns and objections voiced by many on the NextDoor Website for this neighborhood:
1. We do NOT need another high density housing development literally across the street from Laurel
Mews (Laurel Too-Ciose-to-Yous).
2 . The current plan is overly dense , unattractive, provides inadequate green space from the street to
the structures, and limits visibility.
* Height of proposed plan is too high
*only one below market "home" does not justify this development!
2. We do NOT want the traffic, congestion, and extra pressure on our
already crowded schools that even more high density residential
housing will create
3 . It is not fair to concentrate so much of this kind of housing between Shannon and Kennedy Rd. There
are already two similar developments on this corridor. That is enough!
4. Increased traffic on LG Blvd increases cut through traffic in neighborhoods. Do residents want more
of that?.
5 . ANY development on that corner MUST be accompanied by street improvements at the intersection
and a clearly marked bike lane along Shannon Rd . The intersection is not bike friendly-it is bike
dangerous. Anyone making any decisions about this intersection should bike through it at 8 :00a.m . and
2:45pm.
I urge that this area should be zoned for a quiet commercial building such as a law office that minimizes
impact on traffic and schools. Or, less dense housing for seniors. It is the wrong corner for dense family
housing and should not be rezoned as residential.
I hope to make the planning meeting 2/24 but if I am unable, this letter will show the extent of my
objection to this project. I know I am not alone .
Best Regards,
Jessica Richter
From : Cathleen Bannon [mailto :cathleen murray@yahoo .com]
Sent : Friday, February 12, 2016 3 :47 PM
To : Council
Cc : Grant Bannon
Subject : Los Gatos Blvd & Shannon development
As a neighbor and Van Meter, I am extremely concern with the current development going through
approvals at the corner of Los Gatos Blvd and Shannon. We are already dealing with tremendous
congestion on LG Blvd and at VM school , with another 11 homes densely packed into that lot, the town
would only be increasing the problem rather than so lving. At most there should be only 5 or 6 homes
that are single story, with front lawns to help blend into the neighborhood and match other homes on
the Blvd . we need LG Blvd to be more like the walkable neighborhood it is vs high density
thoroughfare. Our schools currently have great reputation that makes LG a highly coveted town ... with
increasing the number of homes and number of students at our schools, this will change. We MUST
slow down development and build another school in town.
Please listen to your residents NOT the developers. Best Cathleen Bannon
16828 Kennedy Rd
415-819-1238
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: Kristin Zanni [ma ilto :kzanni @live.c om]
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 4:23 PM
To: Planning
Su bject: Comments re: II Vicinato Planning Development
Hello,
I live in the town of Los Gatos on Robie Lane, just off of Shannon Road and near Los Gatos
Boulevard .
I recently became aware of the proposed planning development called II Vicinato, which is
proposed to be located at 16212 Los Gatos Boulevard in Los Gatos .
This week, I have reviewed the related documents on the town's website and have watched the
story poles being erected, which continues today.
I am adamantly opposed to this housing development.
Having lived on Rob i e Lane since 2009, I am familiar with the traffic patterns and the overall
feel of the neighborhood.
I cannot support this housing development for a number of reasons, that I would appreciate
taken under consideration .
1. The look and congestion of the proposed 11 units does not fit with the neighborhood, and
certainly not Los Gatos Boulevard .
2 . The impact on traffic would be detrimental to this neighborhood . This is not just due to the
addition of 11 homes but due to shutting off access to and from the Boulevard . This parking lot
is used for Yoga Source parking, which is already bursting at the seams .
3 . Parking on sides streets would increase exponentially (due to overflow Yoga Source parking
and parking from the newly opened Orange Theory). This is a safety is sue to the ch i ldren who
live near the proposed II Vicinato and to the junior high children who walk to and from school.
This is a very serious matter.
4. The schools cannot accommodate an increase in the number of students that would arrive
due to the proposed development. I do not believe the estimated 8 -12 additional students is
reasonable or accurate. Understandably so , families are doing whatever they can to get into the
reputable Los Gatos schools . I believe each of these 11 homes would have school age children .
Overall, I do not believe thi s is the location for 1 1 homes. This neighborhood recently absorbed
the impact of 22 new homes at Laurel Mews on Los Gatos Boulevard and Roberts Road , which
is just across the street from the proposed II Vicinato. This is not the location or neighborhood
to pile on another 11 homes, in addition to two flourishing exercise facilities.
I hope you take my comments under consideration in denying the application to build any new
homes on this acre. The existing businesses, Yoga Source and Artisan Wine, are proving to be
good neighbors and serving the community to the happiness of our residents.
Thank you for your time.
Kristin Zanni
M arni M ose ley
Fr om:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Marni ,
Mark Dav ies <ma rk_da vies_8@ yah oo.com >
Frida y, Februa ry 12, 2016 4:23 PM
Marni Moseley
II Vicinato
I am a Blossom Hill and Fisher parent and a Los Gatos resident. We live on Shady View Ln. The
traffic for us leaving Shannon , and the amount of activity involving my son when he has to cross Los
Gatos Blvd where it intersects with Shannon Rd have both grown substantially s ince the new homes
were built off of Roberts Rd .
I have grave concerns about allowing so many new homes to be built at that same
intersection. There are real safety concerns here as a lot of Fisher students ride their bikes,
skateboards and walk down Shannon to get to school. A purposeful effort to increase the complexity
of that intersection with so many homes seems ill advised .
I have not even mentioned how c rowded the eleme ntary and mi d dle sc hoo ls have become.
Please do not move forward with this housing project II Vicinato .
Sincerely ,
Ma rk Davies
1
From: Tessa Arguijo [mallto:tessaarguijo@gmail.com]
Sent : Friday, February 12, 2016 4:26 PM
To: Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie
Subject: Proposed II Vicinato subdivision
Dear Los Gatos City Council Members-I'm writing to express my objections to the proposed 11 home
subdivision at the Artisan Wine Depot on the corner of Shannon and Los Gatos Blvd . called "II Vicinato". I
know you've heard it all before about the impact that these high density housing developments are
having on the traffic, the schools, and the general quality of life in Los Gatos -so why do these
developments keep getting approved? Haven't enough of us spoken up about the issue? Does every
square inch of Los Gatos need to be developed? You all live in this town-aren't these things bothering
YOU too? This is a particularly bad site for more development, but you all know that. Please shut it
down!
Thank you,
Tessa Arguijo
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kay Maurer <kayathome@yahoo.com>
Friday, February 12, 2016 8:27 PM
Marni Moseley
housing proposed at corner of Shannon and Los Gatos Blvd
I am completely dumbfounded that the city would even consider allowing another group of homes to
be built on small lots on this commercial location. We do not need more housing . We need
construction that will enhance the town, not pack it with more people and cars . Whatever could be
the positive outcome from such a project?
I am totally against having this lot converted to residential zoning, especially multiple homes on such
a small lot. What is the planning department thinking. Please stop this project for the good of the
town and people already living and working here.
Kay Maurer
112 Stacia St
Los Gatos, ca
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ms. Mosley,
Mary Patterson < mmpmitzi@comcast.net >
Friday, February 12, 2016 9:40 PM
Marni Moseley
Artisan Project
The eleven house project proposed on Los Gatos Blvd . is too tall, too dense, will further impact our schools and will
add to the traffic disaster that already exits on Los Gatos Blvd. Please decline approval!!!
Thank you,
M. Patterson
119 Vista Del Campo
Los Gatos
Sent from my iPad
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
K Pool <kirby_pool@yahoo.com >
Friday, February 12, 2016 10:36 PM
Marni Moseley
Proposed development at Shannon and Los Gatos blvd -opposed
I have heard about the 11 unit development proposal for this property and I am opposed to it on the grounds that is too
high of a density and it will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. I understand that studies were
submitted to the contrary, but with all of the new high density housing already in that area (Laurel Mews And bluebird
lane), I believe the dust has not yet settled enough to get valid data on new traffic patterns and the combined impact.
And regardless of any study results, that kind of density project just does not fit my ideal of what Los Gatos should
support. Please pass my no vote along to the powers that be-since I likely will not be able to attend the commission
meeting on this.
I understand the current building on that site was designed to be a car showroom and it is out of place because of the
enormous setbacks all around the building. Perhaps for a lower cost, it could be moved to reduce the setbacks and
another building or two could be built to share the lot. Personally, I think there is room for a nice furniture store or
design center ... Something high-end would be appreciated .
Best regards, Kirby Pool
16849 Placer Oaks Rd
Phone : 408-218-3221
Sent from my iPad
1
From: K Pool [mailto:kirby pool@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:48 PM
To: Planning
Subject: New Dense Housing planned for corner LG Blvd and Shannon Rd -I'm opposed!
Hello Los Gatos Planning Commission,
I have heard about the 11 unit development proposal for this property and, as a neighbor, I am
opposed to it on the grounds that it is too high of a density and it will negatively impact the
character of the neighborhood. I understand that studies were submitted to the contrary, but with
all of the new high density housing already in that area (Laurel Mews And Bluebird lane), I
believe the dust has not yet settled enough to get valid data on new traffic patterns and the
combined impact. And regardless of any study results, that kind of density project just does not
fit my ideal of what Los Gatos should support. Please pass my no vote along to the powers that
be-since I likely will not be able to attend the commission meeting on this .
I understand the current building on that site was designed to be a car showroom and it is out of
place because of the enormous setbacks all around the building. Perhaps for a lower cost, it could
be moved to reduce the setbacks and another building or two could be built to share the
lot. Personally, I think there is room for a nice furniture store or design center ... Something
high-end would be appreciated.
Best regards, Kirby Pool
16849 Placer Oaks Rd
Phone: 408-218-3221
Sent from my iPad
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc :
Subject:
Dear Los Gatos leaders,
harry motro <harrymotro@gmail.com >
Friday, February 12, 2016 11:05 PM
BSpector; Planning ; Marni Mose ley; Town Manager
ICE Carol Motro; Harry Motro
Stop II Vicinato
My wife and I live at 17161 Pine Ave in Los Gatos, very close to "II Vicinato", the new
residential development being proposed for the corner of LG Blvd and Shannon Rd. We
have examined the plans in detail and have viewed the story poles. In our opinion, the
proposed structure is excessively massive, too close to the street (insufficient setbacks),
and does not fit with the feel of the surrounding homes and structures.
Also, traffic on LG Blvd is already unbearable, such that exiting Pine Ave is very difficult.
Adding additional cars from this development will severely compound this problem .
We urge you to NOT let this move forward .
Sincerely,
Harry and Carol Motro
Mobile: +1 408 823 2822 ::: www.harrvmotro.com
1
On Feb 13, 2016, at 9:39AM, Jeff King <kingjeff2@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Marico,
I can't understand that this is the density we want to allow in our neighborhood. What study says that
this is good for Los Gatos, schools, traffic, parking, etc? That corner is a nightmare already.
Does the town have any authority to stop this? What would have to happen to decrease the
density? How do make this illegal?
Thanks for any insight,
Jeff and Kathy
Marni M ose l ey
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
M s. Moseley,
James Lyon <jim@lyonfamily.tv >
Saturday, February 13, 2016 12:19 PM
Marni Moseley
Kathy Romero
16212 Los Gatos Boulevard
I apologize for my late submission of written comments, but please do your best to include them in your staff report. My
interest in the project is based on my family ownership in a single family home across the street on Shannon Road .
As a former Planning Commissi oner for the Town, I find that this project is completely out of character with the land use of
the General Plan . The conversion of retail to residential is mis-use of the PO process. The area remains a vibrant retail and
commercial section of the Boulevard. To the south of Shannon is commercial space up to Calvary Church . And the the north
of the site is mixed use . Across the street is also retail. The introduction of more residential is not in character the the
surrounding land use .
The applicant is disingenuous in their narrat ive, "We anticipate single and married executives without children, as well as
young active "empty nesters" will find the Lu xury Brownstone concept attractive". The mere fact that they are proposing
units with more than 2,100 sqft. living space indicates they are targeting families-not execs or empty nesters. Thi s row
house design is completely inappropriate for the Boulevard with soaring 35' flat facade s over street grade, no separation
between buildings and minimal 5' front setback. Further, the proposed single family homes in the rear of the project are out
of character with the surrounding residences on Shannon -they are too big and have too small a set ba ck from the street or
adj~cent properties. The COG report captures the essence of the design flaws.
I also find the basi s of the traffic study flawed . The use of the SANDAG manual for trip general for an auto dealer is not an
appropriate reference. Ever since the site was the Dodge dealership, it has always been an overflow site for the opposite
dealerships. The site has never been a primary auto dealership that can be comparable to the references in the SANDAG
manual. The addition of 11 homes se verely complicates an already challenging traffic situation. There are a great number of
children that use the bike lane to school daily -this use is in direct conflict with the 11 homes dumping traffic onto Shannon
from a single driveway at peak hours. Further, the re-striping proposed results in the elimination of the parking strip in front
of my property, this putting an active traffic lane against the curb. It is already difficult for the residents to pull out with the
parking strip in place-it would be impossible with an active traffic lane.
The addition of 11 more homes also will add more over-crowding to an already bad situation in the Los Gatos schools . While I
know this is not within the prevue of the Planning Department, it is a relevant topic when looking at land use conversion . I
would expect the Planning Commission and Town Council to address this conce rn.
While the project applicant references laurel Mews as a precedent, 16212 Los Gatos Boulevard needs to stand on its own
merits. It does not. The project as proposed is the wrong land use, the density is too high and out of character with its
surroundings. I reco mmend that the Planning Commiss ion and the Town Council deny the application and se nd the applicant
back to the drawing board .
Regards,
Jim Lyon
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Hi Marni,
ppdmf@yahoo.com
Saturday, February 13, 2016 4:45 AM
Marni Moseley
Regarding the 11+ homes project on Los Gatos Blvd , what the hell are they th inking! Do they have any brains to realize
how bad the congestion is in that area, especially during the morning and late afternoon and even the weekends . What
are their guidelines to decide enough is enough for ridiculous traffic congest ion. My vote and well as many others is to
not even consider building homes there or for any new construction homes in that area . The streets do not allow for the
added traffic. I thought Los Gatos planning department had more intelligence than to approve this kind of development.
How much more are they going to cram into Los Gatos before the ruin the whole area!!!! They are coming from a greedy
way of thinking. They sneaky in their approach by not announcing it publicly!!! Why not have all the info on a giant
board explaining the new project plan including renderings and post it in the parking lot w ith contact info anyone's to
write i n their comments on what they think about the project. I'm sure they will be overwhelmed w ith negative
responses . This town has become something like Los Angeles congested traffic. Way to go plann ing group of Los Gatos!
Sent from my iPhone
1
M arni Mose ley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Fl ag Status:
to whom it may concern,
Albr ight Karla M. <kmalbright @gmail.com >
Sunday, February 14, 2016 2:08 PM
Council
hous ing at Artisan W ine depot
Follow up
Flagged
I am concerned about the increase of housing un its having been built over the last few years with the associa t ed
significantly increased traffic and our schools busting at the seams . The lot that currently houses the Artisan Wine De pot
has an awkward intersection and increasing traffic there will make matters worse .
I live up Kennedy road.
Friday at 3:50pm I tried to leave Kennedy road to cross over Los Gatos Blvd onto Caldwell. I was the 5th car in lin e and
had to wait for THREE light cycles . There was so much traffic on LG Blvd coup led with selfish drivers that whe n the LG
Blvd light turned red the drivers cont inued to scoot into the intersection 1-2 past the limit of the intersection such that
when my light got green only one car managed to make a left hand turn. Increased traffic makes everyone more selfish
and there is a resultant breakdown in the system . I was nearly boxed out of progressi ng across the street when the light
allowed me to proceed.
Additionally it looks to me like the Artisan Wine Depot lot is a commercial lot. How is it being allowed to be zoned as
residential?
It looks like short term gains wins out over long term reasonablene ss .
Please reconsider your decision .
Karla Albright
1
From: Dena Crawford [mailto:dnadance@earthlink .net]
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 4:54PM
To: Planning
Cc: rod@ardbeg.net
Subject: Corner housing project LG Blvd & Shannon
Dear Planning Commission,
We are not in favor ofthe new housing on comer ofLG Blvd and Shannon Road. The schools
can not hold more students. All are at capacity. Please do not approve more housing when
already our schools don't get more money for adding pupils. It stretches the pot that we have and
we already receive less money per pupil than all other school districts in Santa Clara
County. Further, traffic will be awful on this comer, and the traffic is already awful getting
anywhere past this intersection heading toward Fisher and LGHS .
Sincerely,
Dena Crawford, 15534 Longwood Drive
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Barnaby James <bajames@gmail.com>
Sunday, February 14, 2016 8:25 PM
Marni Moseley; Linda Linda
II Vincanto MND
Hi I am a Los Gatos Resident and am reviewing the II Yin canto MND in advance of the planning commission
meeting. The design review by the Cannon group seemed to highlight numerous issues with the design.
However the proposed design doesn't seem to have been modified to reflect this feedback and in the MND there
is the following mitigation:
Mitigation Measure AES-1. Prior to approval of the Planned Development, the applicant shall revise the
project plans to comply with the Town 's Residential Design Guidelines and General Plan goals and policies as
noted in the design review comments prepared by Canon Design Group. Revised project plans will be subject to
the Town's design review process.
When in the process would ll Vincanto provide a mitigation? I worry that current story poles doesn't reflect the
reality of the project and I found the design review highlighted a lot of similar concerns that I have with the
project-namely that "Brownstown" units (as the developer refers to them) along Los Gatos Blvd doesn't match
the rest of the area, the buildings are too high for residential units with no setback and no gap between the units.
Thanks!
Barnaby James
1
From: Kathleen Barry [mailto :kathleenabarry7@yahoo .com]
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 9:59 AM
To: Planning
Subject: Corner of Shannon and LG Blvd (II Vicinato)
Attn : Planning Department
I have been born and raised in Los Gatos . I have watched the houses take over the
orchards I played in as a child (I even worked as an intern at the planning commission as
my first job in high school). I have lived here and seen the town change from little local
mom and pop shops (that you wanted to shop at), to larger cha i n stores. I can no longe r
just "run downtown" and pick something up because with all the new housing , there is no
parking and no quick trip downtown. Nor in the small town I grew up in, do I want to go
downtown and park in some high rise parking garage like at Santana Row . I live here. Not
there. If I wanted that, I would move there.
I live in Blossom Hill Manor and it can take me at least 20 minutes to get downtown-and
that depends on which road you take. If you try going downtown around 3-Spm -forget
it. Los Gatos Boulevard is bumper to bumper, as is University and North Santa Cruz
Avenue . It is GRIDLOCK. Are you at your desks or driving in i t at these hours or in the am
when school is in session?
How do you possibly think there can be room for any more houses (not to mention on one
of the busiest street corners in town (as people are going to Fisher, Van Meter, Los Gatos
High and Blossom Hill School the other direction). It's a recipe for disaster. Not to mention
the North 40. Have you tried getti ng down to Hwy 85 on Los Gatos Boulevard (at various
times during the day). Not to mention adding more kids to the schools that are already
crowded . How is any of this a good idea? I just don 't see it.
I'm not sure what is driving the build, build, build mentality. But, it is ruining our town. I
know none of my neighbors are ex cited about either the North 40 or II Vivinato (The
Friendly Neighborhood). Our neighborhood is NOT feeling friendly about the new addition
and problems it poses .
Sincerely,
Kathleen Barry
948 Cherrystone Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
From: Siegel, Jeffrey [mailto:jeffrey.siegel@us .panasonic .com]
Sent : Friday, February 12, 2016 4 :15PM
To : Marni Moseley; Laurel Prevetti; BSpector; Town Manager
Cc : planning@losgatos.ca.gov; Jes sica Richter
Subject: Re: Proposed Development: II Vicinato" 16212 Los Gatos Boulevard on the corner of Shannon
Road
I second Ms. Richter's assessment below.
The town of LG has a dismal track record in allowing problematic high-density housing situations. This is
not news to anyone.
This new housing proposal should be part of the North40 section of Los Gatos , not the existing
residential area for all the reasons noted below.
Lauren -please respond with what we can expect from the town planning department.
In the process of trying to solve a state mandated housing factor, you are created a bigger one for the
town of Los Gatos . Not a great legacy to create.
Jeffrey
From: d.madsen@nm .com [mailto :d.madsen@nm.com]
Sent : Monday, February 15, 2016 5:03 PM
To : Planning
Subject: 11 houses at Shannon and LG Blvd
We don't need 11 more houses in this already h ighly congested area . The new houses near green hills
preschool a few years ago plus everything else is incredibly tough to navigate especially during school
hours. Please consider the impact on our wonderful community by "jamming" more houses in. And the
impact on our already highly impacted schools . We don't need to stretch these limited resources any
further. Thank you
Dan Madsen
4086916807
M arni M ose ley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear sirs,
Johane s Swenberg <j o hanes_swenberg @yahoo.co m >
Tuesday, February 16, 2016 7:46 AM
Marn i Moseley; Planning
Planning input
I am writing in opposition to the current planned development for the site at the corner of Shannon and Los Gatos Blvd .
I feel the plan to allow 11 homes is too crowded for a one acre lot.
Thank you
Johanes swenberg
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
RECEIVED
FEB 1 6 2016
d h f b · d '!;OWN O F LOS GATO Stan on t e corner o Ro erts R . and L.G. Blvd. anq:,L ANNIN G o 1 v 151 0 ~
look at the view of the hills. Then imagine the view
once these two story structures are built. The view is
gone!!!
Including this site, there will be three similar home
developments within a four-block area on Los Gatos
Blvd. Not one of these is suitable for the gateway to Los
Gatos and its residential neighborhoods.
This Shannon site plan is a prime example of a
developer summiting plans that in no way fit into our
unique Los Gatos setting. The structures block
whatever view of the hills we have left and their
closeness to the sidewalk is imposing to say the least.
This project is in need of re-configuring with homes
located on alternate locations on the lot. This alone
would preserve the view of the hills.
You do not have to be reminded that your
responsibility is to the residents and not the developer.
Don't let residents down on this. Help in keeping Los
Gatos Beautiful. Turn this back to the developer and
see to it that they do not simply mirror the two other
sites. Enough is enough!! One story homes are clearly
an option and should be looked into. To accept this plan
is to downgrade the appeal of our unique Town.
Other~ will definitely w .eigh in pp tbe other crucial
issue: TRAFFIC. Both issues should be enough for the
Planning Commission to stand up for the residents and
deny the current p lan for this project.
Robb and Nancy Walker
16791 Lorna St.
Los Gatos
From: TRICIA L. CAPRI [mailto:tricia cap ri @yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 2 :12 PM
To: Council
Cc: TRICIA L. CAPRI
Subject: ANOTHER development?
Los Gatos Council -
I'm astounded to hear that yet another development (11 houses?) will be
built on Los Gatos Blvd in an already crowded area!
My home is on LG Blvd and can barely get out of my driveway as it is. This
is ridiculous!! I just learned about this development and saw the drawings.
Those homes are WAY too large for that space and should be single story at
the maximum! There are no yards or parking area either!
There are at least twice as many homes planned for that space than should
be allowed .
What is the plan for parking? I find it infuriating that I cannot park in front
of my own home due to the large number of houses that were broken up
into multiple (4 or more) units per building. There doesn't seem to be much
monitoring of this situation, either. Unfortunately, I can't get to town
meetings to voice my opinion because I work too late ... but this is why we
vote for you all --to PROTECT our town from these types of
overdevelopment.
Why on Earth are you all allowing a development of this size in that
tiny location??
Anxiously awaiting your response,
Tricia Capri
Homeowner
Los Gatos Blvd .
Marni Moseley
From :
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Karen Kurtz <kurtzk@comcast.net>
Tuesday, February 16, 2016 5:40_ PM
Marni Moseley
Proposed development at Shannon/LG Bl v'd
Please pass 'along my disapproval ofthe proposed development on the corner at Shannon Rd/LG Blv'd to the planning
commission members. I cannot make it to the meeting.
This is not an appropriate use of this lot or for the town of Los Gatos. It needs to stay commercial. How about a nice up
scale restaurant for the residents on that side of town? We already look like Manhattan with the development that was
allowed at the old Swanson Ford site with those condos sitting right on the sidewalk. That is not an appropriate look for
our Historical town. I really dislike both of the developments that were allowed on that corner across Blossom Hill from
each other. The Cornerstone development on the other side of LG Blv'd is so much more pleasant & appropriate for our
town. We do not need the unattractive & dense proposed project at Shannon nor do we need to change more
commercial into residential. Plea se do not allow this project to happen .
Thank you for your serious consideration .
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mary < maryl1998413@aol.com >
Tuesday, February 16, 2016 6:08 PM
Marn i Moseley
Object to new development on Shannon I 1gb
I personally object to another commercial lot in our town converting to residential ---at all.
1) w_e need to keep the few remaining commercial sites for restaurants etc .... to support the population growth from
the huge quantity of additional houses recently added and currently congesting LGB .
2) New homes will negatively affect the already impacted schools.
3) New homes (and probably 2 cars per house) will negatively impact traffic at that corner ... which is already too
congested and very dangerous.
4). The story poles do tell a story ... Anything built that tall and that close to LGB will block views .
Los Gatos Boulevard is becoming a tunnel!
Thank you,
Mary
Sent from my iPhone
1
Marn i M ose ley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Terry McBriarty <tmcbriarty@gmail.com >
Tuesday, February 16, 2016 6:09 PM
Marni Moseley
tmcbriarty.l560f@m.evernote.com Evernote Upload
Story Poles at Los Gatos Blvd -Artisan Wine Depot LG Blvd.
I am writing to express my concern regarding the project planned by the developer indicated by the story poles present
at the Artisan Wine depot. First off I fine the proposed density to be totally absurd and inappropriate for our town. We
cannot sustain this type of density and continuing to allow it at such proximity to our school is putting children in
danger. I am thankful that no one has been seriously injured or killed but I see close calls on a daily basis as I take my
son to school or pick him up. To have two story buildings pressed up aga inst the sidewalk as if Los Gatos is some kind of
city is totally absurd and if this were approved would set yet another frightening precedent. It is bad enough to think
about the kinds of things that are going to be build in the North 40 and the kind of pressure that building is going to put
on the towns infrastructure we simply cannot take 11 homes on that tiny little corner. Parents and children park in that
parking lot. People from Orange Theory park in that parking lot. People from Yoga Source park in that parking lot.
construction in and of itself will be a danger to students who need to cross the street several times a day to and from
Fisher Middle School , Van Meter, Los Gatos High School and some kids going to Blossom Hill. There is a constant flow of
pedestrians and to leave only a sliver of sidewalk, which would of course be taking out completely during the course of
construction along with several lanes of traffic as is always the case -bringing traffic and all of our lives to a standstill -
why can't they cut into their profits and do the work outside of rush hour at night? I would love to see something for
youth there. Another restaurant. Was it the stupid town plan that said we wanted houses there? No one wants houses
there ! That's just stupid! The kids are all around that place-give them some place to go and hang out and buy stuff
from! Instead of turning every car dealership into housing which makes our school situation worse why don't we turn it
into some kind of sales tax generator and make it better? This plan sucks. If the developer insists on build ing more
housing-which we need like we need a hole in our head then he can build 4 houses-that is how much would nicely fit
on that lot -why can he stick so many houses on there? Because he is a developer? Why? It's ugly. It's dangerous . It's
wrong for our town. It's wrong for that location . No. No. No .
Thanks
Terry McBriarty
15075 Garden Hill Drive
los Gatos CA 95032
1
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am concerned that I will not be able to get to the February 24 meeting {brand new grandchi ld), so am
submitting the remarks I planned to make.
Sincerely,
Barbara Dodson , 239 Marchmont Drive, Los Gatos
PLANNED TALK
Perhaps you know the story of The Mitten. One cold snowy day, a boy loses one of his mittens in the
forest. A mole burrows into the mitten to get warm. Then a rabbit hops in to get warm. Next a frog
jumps in. Soon an owl and a mouse and a cricket move in, all because the mitten is such a nice cozy
place . But the mitten is getting a little crowded . Finally an ant tries to move in. And what happens? The
mitten splits apart, dumping all the animals out into the cold snow.
Is our town becoming like the mitten? Bit by bit, new developments add to overcrowding on our streets
and in our schools. The II Vicinato project supposedly will bring roughly 100 new car trips to our streets.
But this is just part of the drip, drip, drip of development that is ruining our small town.
I would like to see our Town follow the rules of its own code. Either this site should be used for homes
on lots no smaller than 8,000 sq . ft . that occupy no more than 40% of t hat space, or the site should
continue to be a commercial zone . I object to the continued used of Planning Development Overlay
zones to create too-dense housing. According to the General Plan , "The PD overlay zone is intended to
ensure orderly planning and quality design that will be in harmony with the exi sting or potential
development of the surrounding neighborhood."
We do not see good planning in this project. There is not adequate frontage o n Lo s Gatos Boulevard
with the town homes specified at no more than 7 feet from the sidewalk. The townhomes and other
homes are bulky and massive, making them completely incompatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. With their bulk and lack of frontage, these homes are not what is expect ed in a small
town and will visually degrade our community.
With j ust 8 guest spaces, there is not enough parking. Suppose just three residents hold Superbowl
parties, and each invites 4 friends. That already gives us 12 guest cars . And suppose two teenage
residents already use the parking spots for the third family car on a re gular basis . With this insufficient
amount of parking, people searching for parking will add to traffic at an already difficult intersection.
I hope you will seriously con sider the issues and concerns the Cannon Design Group raised. Staff had thi s
study done, and , among others, it mentions these problems with the project : limited landscape buffer to
bu sy streets; lack of separat ion between units; and lack of integration among units and with the
neighborhood . The report concludes that the concept and design of the project are of great concern.
I hope that you will reject this project.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
February 16,2016
Planning Commission
110 E . Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
I am opposed to the 11 Vicinato development and hope that you will vote against it.
PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED BY THE CANNON DESIGN GROUP AND NOT
MITIGATED BY THE DEVELOPER. Many of the problems with the development are
described in the review by the Cannon Design Group from August 2014. The developer does not
appear to have addressed any of these problems. Among other issues that the review raises, the
development has setbacks that are very small; has townhouse units that are repetitive and
degrade the look of our Town along a major street; has a comer unit that is particularly bulky in
design and contains elements that are "quite foreign to the Town of Los Gatos"; has detached
homes that are considerably bulkier and larger in scale than nearby homes; and lacks visual
integration as a total planned community. The development diminishes rather than adds to our
neighborhood and community.
ABUSE OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE. It seems that, of late ,
developers have been abusing the Planned Development Overlay Zone, using it as an excuse to
create housing that is too dense for our Town. You should not permit this to continue. I would
like to live in a town that follows its own code and Town Plan. As I'm sure you know, the Town
Code states that single family residences should occupy no more than 40% of their lot. The
minimum zoning for a single family residence is 8,000 sq. ft. Based on this , the 11 Vicinato lot
should contain no more than 4-5 homes.
Since these are single-family residences, what is the justification for not using the Town Code
requirements for single-family residential zones?
11 Vicinato certainly does not conform to what is described in the General Plan. I have added my
own emphases below.
LU-16 General Plan. Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone.
The PD overlay zone is intended to e ns ure orderly planning and quality d esign that will
be in harmony with th e existing or potential d evelopment of th e surrounding
ne ighborhood. The Planned Development Overlay is a specially tailored development
plan and ordinance which designates the zoning regulations for the accompanying
project, sets specific development standards, and ensures that zoning and the General
Plan are consistent. Commercial, residential or industrial property or a mixture of these
uses may be considered for a Planned Development Overlay.
I agree with the Cannon Des ign Group that II Vicinato is NOT "in harmony with the existing
or potential development of the surrounding neighborhood." It certainly does not represe nt
"quality design," particularly in regard to the townhouses. These townhouses hide the view
of the hills and do not blend in any way with the surrounding neighborhoods.
OTHER VIOLATIONS OF THE TOWN PLAN. II Vicinato also violates additional
policies form the Town Plan.
Policy LU-6.4. Prohibit uses that may lead to the deterioration of residential
neighborhoods, or adversely impact the public safety or the residential character of a
residential neighborhood .
This development, with its la c k of adequate setbacks, will c rea te safety hazards in an
area used by children as they walk or bike to school. It will add to traffic proble ms at an
already hazardous intersection.
Policy LU-6.5. The type , density, and intensity of new land use shall be consistent with
that of the immediate neighborhood .
As noted by the Cannon D esign Group, the development has units that are significantly
taller than any nearby units and, thus, are out of sync with the look of the n eighborhood.
Th e townhome idea do es not match the look of nearby homes in any way and creates an
unattractive and bulky mass along a major Los Gatos street. The intensity ofuse--11
home on less than an acre-is out of sync with the Town Code .
INSUFFICIENT SETBACKS . The lack of sufficient setbacks at II Vicinato is a major
problem. They add to the unsightliness of the townhomes and create an uncomfortable walking
area in front of these townhomes. I believe the Town should follow its own Town Code
particularly in regard to setbacks. The minimum front yard for a single-family home is 25 feet;
minimum side yard is 8 feet ; and minimum rear yard is 20 feet. The minimum frontage for a cul-
de-sac is 30 feet and the minimum width is 60 feet.
TRAFFIC AND PARKING. 11 Vicinato is at a very busy comer. During morning and
afternoon school dropoff and pickup periods, serious congestion and queuing occurs. The
morning dropoff also coincides with the morning commute, making this particular
intersection a nightmare. Children are walking and biking to schools in an area of heavy and
dangerous traffic, made all the more dangerous by the narrowing of Los Gatos Boulevard
nearby and the jogging of the roadway to cross from Shannon to Roberts Road. The
development itself supposedly will generate roughly 100 car trips, which does not seem like
a lot. But coupled with the lack of setbacks, I believe this additional traffic will create
problems , particularly during peak periods.
The project also has insufficient parking. If just three home owners invite three friends to
their homes at the same times, all eight parking spots will be used. And suppose a teenager
who lives in the development needs to use a parking space for his/her third family vehicle on
a permanent basis. This lack of parking, coupled with the fact that Orange Theory and Yoga
Source patrons will no longer be able to use the lot , will just add to the traffic as people circle
looking for places to leave their cars.
PROBABLE SCHOOL IMP ACT. The MND claims that the development will generate no
more than 13 new schoolchildren. Since the homes are all four or five bedrooms , I highly
doubt that this is accurate. Coupled with the fact that previous estimates of how many
schoolchildren will come from Laurel Mews and Blueberry Lane were off by roughly 100%,
I think you should assume that at least 22-28 new school spots will be required to
accommodate the residents of II Vicinato. This is the equivalent of a new classroom. The
likelihood of many new students living in this 11-residence development points to the need
to reduce the density of the development-to a more reasonable 4 or 5 homes or to no homes
at all but rather a commercial development.
BLOCKING THE IDLLS. Finally, the development-with some buildings reaching as
high as the maximum allowable 30 feet-blocks the view of our hills from Los Gatos
Boulevard. Hill views are part of what makes living in Los Gatos a pleasure. Why would you
allow a development to block them?
I encourage you to reject this project.
Sincerely,
Barbara Dodson
239 Marchmont Drive, Los Gatos
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kay Maurer <kayathome@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, February 16, 2016 9:54 PM
Marni Moseley
11 home project on corner of Shannon and LG Blvd
Please do not consider changing zoning on this property from commercial to SF or PD. We have
enough housing in the area with the 300 plus homes being considered at the north end of the
town. The owner is asking for the change to zoning so they can maximize their profit on a lot that is
not even 1 acre. At the most, two homes should be allowed if any.
We do need additional businesses that enrich the lives of those who live here, not more people, cars,
pollution, crowded classrooms and noise.
Please take this as a vote of NO to both aspects of this development. I have lived here for over 30
years and am very sad to see the town I love changed into a dense housing area with more traffic
than ever, more pollution, and greedy developers getting their way at the expense of the residents .
Sincerely,
Kay Maurer
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
sgies1217@aol.com
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 8:40AM
Marni Moseley
II Vicinato Project
I have lived on Magneson Loop for 46 years. I would like to see residential on the corner of Los Gatos Blvd and Shannon
Road, but am opposed to the current proposed project there for many reasons:
Too much additional traffic at an already impacted corner. .. go by here in the morning or the afternoon when school is in
session .
The individual units are excessive in size square foot wise . What happened to the concept of minimal living space?
The density is too high ... too many houses for less than an acre of land .
Too imposing in size for the corner and for the two houses on Magneson Loop to which it backs up ... less heighth .
The entry road is too close to the corner. If the density were less , it would be possible to put it further away from Los
Gatos Blvd and still have fire truck access .
I hope that the voice of the community will be heard. In the past the town has been very open to listening to us. I hope
that is true in this case.
Sincerely,
Sharon Gies
16720 Magneson Loop
Los Gatos, CA 95032
February 17, 2016
1
From : Jeannie_hair [mailto:je annie ha ir@yahoo .com]
Sent : Wednesday, February 17, 2016 6:37AM
To : Planning
Subject : 16212 Los Gatos Blvd
NO NO NO
I'm a resident of Magneson Loop .
The proposed clump of homes has no place on the busy corner. It is too much building for the site
(come on), will increase the already congested area , and does not have any kind of harmony with Los
Gatos architecture .
Please reconsider.
Jeann ie Ellis
16630 Magneson loop
los Gatos, Ca 95032
From: Lydia Norcia [mailto:lmnorcia@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:57PM
To: Planning
Subject: Subject -Wine Depot Project and North 40 Project
To Whom it May Concern . Due to a work conflict we were unable to
get to the meeting at the Town Hall today .
Please be advised that the planned development for the former
Wine Depot lot on Los Gatos Blvd is not acceptable. In Addition,
we do not think it is in line with the goal to preserve the
"TOWN" of Los Gatos .
Los Gatos is a "Town" not a City. The East Los Gatos area has
been overwhelmed by over development with too many single family
houses, town homes and large commercial buildings on tiny spaced
lots that obscure the view of our beautiful Los Gatos Hillside.
I recommend that the Town of Los Gatos adopt a plan to preserve
the history and "Town" Atmosphere in all areas of Los Gatos not
just the Downtown Historic areas.
The Town of Los Gatos should have one unified goal for all areas
of Los Gatos. That unified plan should include density and
architectural style.
In, Addition I do not agree with any and all requests for
exceptions for the building contractors at the North 40 Project.
This is a very important addition to our town and it needs to be
done with the utmost care and concern for all residents of Los
Gatos . The builders and contractors who are going to profit the
mos t from this project should be held to the letter of law and
all must comply to the town's requirements in all ways.
Thank you for your consideration for the above comments.
Kind Regards,
Lydia and Dom Norcia
124 Regent Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Best Regards, Lydia Norcia
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Moseley,
n ilgun bordbar <nilgunbordbar@yahoo.com >
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:12AM
Marni Moseley /
Housing Development
I am the owner on Hilow Court. and have some concerns about the housing of 11 new homes at Los
Gatos Blvd. and Shannon Rd .
To begin with, the little commercial space with the orange Theory across the site is already very
congested. There are plenty of times when we want to turn left into Shannon Rd . from Los Gatos Blv.
and we have to wait since there are numerous cars who want to turn into the full parking lot and block
the entrance to Shannon Rd . So with this development there will be even more traffic congestion right
so close at an intersection.
Secondly this is a commercial site and it should stay that way.
Third, there will be more kids who have to attend the already congested Los Gatos Schools.
Thank you for your consideration about these matters.
Sincerely
Bordbar
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Los Gatos Planning Department,
Kathy Murtfeldt <kmurtfeldt@aol.com>
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:37AM
Marni Moseley
New proposed housing development on Los Gatos Blvd
As an eleven year resident of Los Gatos, I want to take this opportunity to voice my opinion on the project for 11 new
homes on Los Gatos Blvd.
We purchased here in Los Gatos in 2005 in a very strong real estate market. We appreciated that homes were on larger
lots than other areas in the
Silicone Valley. As time has progressed we see that changing and not in a way we like.
Eleven homes on .92 areas is too dense for Los Gatos. That property is commercial and should remain so. It is on a very
busy intersection near two schools. Traffic is that area is already congested
during school drop off and pick up times.
It is important to keep within the character of the town . These proposed homes are not planned with that in mind .
Regards,
Kathy Murtfeldt
226 Bella Vista Ave
Los Gatos, CA 95030
408 384 2571
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
ppd mf@yahoo.com
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:39AM
Marni Moseley
II Vincanto development at 16212 Los Gatos Blvd
Re : II Vincanto development at 16212 Los Gatos Blvd (currently Artisan Wine Depot)
I hope you hear the voices of the residents who care about the history and beauty of Los Gatos.
We are long time residents of Los Gatos and we are completely against the II Vincanto development! It does not make
sense to cram more homes into an already congested area. STOP over developing the town of Los Gatos!!!
Regards,
Dana Frediani
Eric Johnson
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sirs,
Nancy Toombs < nancy@toombs.net>
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 10:24 AM
Marni Moseley
Marge Rice
ll Vincanto Proposed Development
I live off of Shannon Rd and drive Shannon/Los Gatos Blvd. everyday. The congestion at the comer of
Shannon and LG Blvd. is already very heavy, especially when school is beginning and ending, also weekends
because beach goers have decided to use LG. Blvd to miss Hyw 17. That interaction is a real
boondoggle. Adding 11 homes to that comer will be a disaster for those of us that need to get to the High
School, library and downtown, not to mention the freeway for work. The developers that you are allowing to
build housing of late are taking advantage of you, and of the residents, to the detriment of all.
5 homes on that property might be acceptable, although 3 middle sized homes would be better. I know--then
they will be overpriced, but I predict that even the row homes will still be too expensive for the middle income
first time buyer, because "this is Los Gatos", people will pay anything to live in Los Gatos, even when squeezed
together like sardines. Please don't allow this!
I have lived here for over 30 years and have loved being here, until lately, when traffic is aways at a standstill,
and parking is impossible. I don't want to keep people out, but cramming a bunch of houses into a small space
where there is already major congestion is not a solution.
Also, what happened to "Tree City", removing at least 15 trees! My house is built around the trees so that they
could be accommodated, what happened to that concept?
I'll be at the planning commission meeting. I hope that you have not already given tacit agreement to this and
the hearing is just a formality.
Nancy Toombs
1 00 Hill Top Dr.
LG
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Keo King <keofking@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:26 AM
Marni Moseley
Shannon and LG . Blvd
HUH? Again??? The Morley boys asked the neighborhood very nicely if they could do something similar
several years ago. We all told them it doesn't fit and it didn't go through. So now we have to go through it all
again??? This time with the most defiant and ugly story poles imaginable. The hubris of this! --it's true that it
hasn't even been approved??? This time with "a developer" from out of town--the country, even, ifl read the
sign correctly, with only its interests to consider.
That intersection is problematic at every time of day. Right turns against the red light; red light running
rampant, particularly L.G. Blvd. onto Shannon. I live on the comer east of the iqtersection and have for twenty
odd years. I have watched traffic wax and wane with the economy. To put eleven houses with the attendant car
and foot traffic is so terribly dangerous for the Van Meter and Fisher kids. It seems every time there is a change
in ownership of a property in the area more houses are squeezed into one family property.
Dangerous, not to mention view blocking and inappropriate and too crowded for the site. Please! Don't do this
to us. We live here and you want us to live with this? Look across the street to where the other car dealership
used to be and you'll see what I mean.
Respectfully, (I guess),
Keo F . King
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it concerns,
bsagin@aol.com
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:45 AM
Marni Moseley
16212 Los Gatos Bl
Bad idea for this parcel. I live on Los Gatos Bl and have for 11 years . I understand developers making money and the
Town getting their taxes ... but this area is already choked with people . Keep it commerciai. .. Restaurants ...
S incerely,
Bret Sagin
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Marni,
les@les -thomas .com
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11 :37 AM
Marni Moseley
Planning ; Les Thoma s
Proposed Development @ Shannon/LG Blvd
I'm a long time Los Gatos residence, living on Magneson Loop for the last 30+ years. I would like to
communicate that I'm very concerned about the proposal to put 11 homes, in a 3 story structure, on the
corner on Shannon Road and Los Gatos Blvd.
I do not support this proposal for the following reasons:
-Structure is too large for similar structures in the area
-Traffic is a major concern for our town, this will just increase the already unacceptable level of traffic
congestion.
-Intersection is currently difficult to cross between Roberts Road, Shannon Road and Los Gatos
Blvd. That intersection needs some re-architecting with regards to traffic flow and safety before adding
more homes right on the corner.
Thanks for listening to my concerns.
Regards,
Les Thomas
16730 Magneson Loop
Los Gatos, CA 95032
1
Marni M ose ley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
cmbjlb@ comcast.net
Wednesday, February 17, 201611:03 AM
Marni Moseley
Vincanto development at 16212 Los Gatos Blvd
Please do not approve this construction. It is unsightly, not in keeping with the neighborhood or the town of Los Gatos .
I won't even get into the traffic issues on thi s side of 17. I live less than a 1/4 m ile to Lunard is and it too k me 20 minutes
to get home in my car on Sunday. I could have walked home quicker ..... and would have if I did not have bags of
groceries. As a neighbor in the area , I am not in favor of the Vincanto development.
Thanks,
Carolyn Benson
300 Templeton Lane
Los Gatos, CA
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi-
Jen Marcum <jenmarcum@comcast.net>
Wednesday, February 17, 201612:56 PM
Marni Moseley
No more homes to be built in Los Gatos PLEASE
My family and I have lived in Los Gatos since 1996 when my first son was born here. I had lived here for several years
prior to that after I graduated from college . My husband has worked for a local business in downtown Los Gatos for last
25 years. We have watched our wonderful town become completely over built and the schools become so crowded . My
sons were bussed to another school in San Jose while Daves Avenue got remodeled . The school was remodeled to
accommodate more students for the future but, my understanding is that the school is already filled to the maximum.
We live on Bruce Avenue, which is a feeder street to Daves Avenue , and during school drop off and pick up, it is
extremely difficult for us and our neighbors to even back out of our driveway. The traffic has become so horrible and at
times, grid lock . We cannot even turn off of our street onto Winchester on the weekends. The fact that Los Gatos would
actually consider building more homes with more kids for the already over crowded schools and more cars on the
already congested roads is unbelievable. At some point, the education for our children will be impacted due to too many
kids per classroom . There is no room for the kids to park at the high school currently and as a result more
neighborhoods are impacted by students parking on the neighborhood streets. It is SO sad . It can take over 25 minutes
to get home from the high school which is only 1+ miles away. I am not sure why we are ruining such a great little
community by over building? I can only imagine how awful it will be once the North 40 gets built. So many of us are
dreading that development!! There is also a large housing development being built where the nuns used to live that will
completely back up the intersection at Main near Purple Onion . We have friends and relatives who live locally who no
longer bother to come to Los Gatos to shop or dine because it's too hard to get here and there is nowhere to pa r k. We
usually meet up with them in Campbell now.
Please reconsider the building of the homes proposed for Los Gatos Boulevard and Shannon . That is a bad intersection
with the Fisher traffic and Van Meter traffic anyways. I cannot believe that 11 more homes could even fit on that
commercial property lot. It is really an awful proposal. Please preserve what is left of our TOWN not city and don't
consider anymore home developments being built here .
Thanks for your consideration!
Jennifer Marcum
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it may concern ,
Warren <warra@comcast.net >
Thursday, February 18, 2016 8:10AM
Marni Moseley
II Vincanto development at 162 12 Los Gatos Blvd
My name is Warren Te issier and I live on 16889 Mitchell Ave . across the corner fro m the proposed new development
called II Vicinato .
I write to you to express my concern regarding :
-the height of the "Brownstone" home on Los Gatos Blvd.
As you drive South on the Blvd this new construction would completely block any views of the mountains and will dwarf
all other nearby constructions. It is taller than anything else in its surrounding area. In addition the very small space {1
foot) between these "Brownstones" will in fact give the impression of a continuous building rather than separate units.
The so-called Brownstone style, is just not a style that fits with the California architecture, much Jess with the Los Gatos
architecture, it seems to be a way to cram more units together, under the guise of an architectural style .
In addition we are concerned about the closeness of these buildings to the sidewalk, if I remember correctly, there will
be a couple of feet distance from the building to the sidewalk. This is very uncharacteristic to the current construction
around town. Again, this is more a "big City'' style, and not typical quaint image that Lo s Gatos is known and loved by its
current residents. Thi s is not what people like and ex pect in Lo s Gatos.
-the traffic and parking problem that high density construction will create during and after construction.
Adding 11 more homes will impact the traffic of the already very bu sy Los Gatos Blvd and Shannon intersection, as well
as increase the already exis ting parking problem of the surrounding neighborhood, school s and bu sinesses .
To many bu sinesses were already approved to open without considering the parking needs of all of them and adding
more people density without creating parking for the existing and future need s will aggravate the existing problem.
I appreciate your taking into consideration this opinion. Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach me at
408 202 0376
Be st Regards ,
Warren Tei ss ier
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Good Morning,
Stephanie < sfigeira@yahoo.com >
Thursday, February 18, 2016 8:00 AM
Marni Moseley
Stephanie Figeira
16212 Los Gatos Blvd
I'm reaching out to express three of my concerns regarding the proposed project located at, 16212 Los Gatos
Blvd .
1. The project has too many homes for the land available.
2. This is a mixed commercial residential section of the boulevard and this property should be encouraged
to be the same, if it is going to change from its current commercial use.
3. The mass of the project facing Los Gatos Boulevard and extending around the comer of Shannon Road
closes in this all ready challenging intersection, which is a major road way for funneling traffic to and from this
side of town.
In closing, when story polls have to be installed in such a manner that they don 't overly impact current traffic
issues, this is a red flag, that even the proposed development of this site has negative impact on the area.
Thank you,
Stephanie R Figeira
Certified Nutrition Consultant
+1(408)499.2766
sfigeira@yahoo.com
"Got your health! Got it all!"-R. Rodman
Stephanie R Figeira
16345 Los Gatos Blvd., Unit 15
Los Gatos, CA 95032
(408) 356-0560
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Planning Commission,
Philip Shanker <pjshanker@comcast.net>
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:22 PM
Marni Moseley
II Vincanto development
The "odd" intersection of Shannon, LG Blvd and Fisher is already busy. To add 11 houses to the intersection would make
the site gridlock. The town's record of choosing tax revenue projects over town beautification is at issue. Los Gatos Blvd
is becoming un -drivable thanks to the new businesses and adding 11 houses to LG Blvd would only make matters worse .
Phil Shanker
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mr. Moseley;
Gail Boddy <s.and.s@verizon.net >
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 6:38PM
Marni Moseley
II Vincanto development at 16212 Los Gatos Blvd
Please do not approve this high density housing development. We see that life in Los Gatos has been deteriorating
with each new development. The impact to the schools is never what the developers state, the traffic is unbearable
and dangerous for emergency vehicles to get to folks in time. With two schools so close to the development and
one already high density housing development there I don't know how any one in their right mind can approve this
unless they don't care about injuries or death to children. I won't be voting in future elections for anyone associated
with this approval in future elections. Our property values will decline as again quality of life is declining in our lovely
city. Please do not approve. Two homes on this lot should be plenty, no more.
Best,
Martin & Gail Boddy
512 Nino Ave
LG
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ms . Moseley
MARLENE <mjbggordon@com cast.net >
Wednesd ay, February 17, 201 6 6:3 0 PM
Marni M ose ley
16212 Lo s Gatos Bl vd
As residents (annexed 2008) of the East Los Gatos neighborhood near the proposed project at 16212
Los Gatos Blvd we would like to voice our concern regarding this project.
The developer states in their project narrative that there would be 11 single family residences on less
than 1 acre of land . Of the total , six would be "Luxury Brownstone" units that would appeal to single
and married executives without children and active "empty nesters". Clearly this is not the goal of the
developer as all the units are 4 bedrooms and none have masters on the ground floor. Instead, this
project is geared toward attracting famil ies which would add additional students to the schools and
a probable result of a minimum of 2 2 more vehicles . The plan provides access to the project on
Shannon Rd . This burdens all traffic on Shannon Road and adds to an already crowded intersection
at the corner of Shannon Road and Los Gatos Blvd. Any access to the project should be relocated to
Los Gatos Blvd . as is the main entrance for the Artisan Wine Depot currently. In addition, there are
only 8 additional parking spaces for the development which would result in more street
parking. Currently there are times when Shannon Road is lined with parked vehicles for Orange
Theory Fitness and some from The Yoga Source . Add to that the number of elementary and junior
high school students navigating the intersection by foot, bike, scooter and skateboard and this will
become a real problem for an already congested area along Los Gatos Blvd.
Now that the story poles are up, it apparent that the impact of the Brownstones will be massive
and will appear as one giant until as they are higher than surrounding residences, is so little
separation and their proximity to the sidewalk so close. The impact will be to dwarf all structures in
the surrounding area . It is surprising that the planning department would allow another high density
project like this so close to the Laurel Mews development. I would have thought a lesson would have
been learned with Laurel Mews . There should be some sort of set backs for all residential projects
regardless whether the zoning was commercial in the past. In addition , the architecture seems to be
so out of touch with the surrounding neighborhood. At least, Laurel Mews has a pleasing look.
Imagine how nice it would have been if homes were on larger lots! The architecture of the
Brownstones (II Vicinato) would seem better suited near a development like the project on Almaden
Expressway near the Bass Pro Sporting shopping center.
In their August 26 , 2014 letter to the town, the Cannon Design Group states: "There is a wide range
of issues and concerns with this proposal. .. it does not seem to be consistent with the Town's
Residential Design Guidelines, and there are a number of specific design concerns . In terms of the
residential design guidelines , the site plan and building designs do not seem to be sympathetic to the
following principles ... " The outside architecture firm also agrees that the scope, design , and overall
look of the Brownstones are not in keeping with the plan of the town .
In addition to design concerns, the high density involves safety issue s for all those who frequently use
this intersection . W e would like to urge the planning commission to fully reject this proj ect. There are
1
so many other business opportunities that would be suitable for the location: din ing establishment
(Aquis), a small nursery or garden store, a bakery and rotisserie similar to Gayle's in Capitola, just to
name a few. This type of business would be a positive addition to the community and not another
crammed together housing development that adds to the already existing traffic problem and crowded
schools.
William & Marlene Gordon
16357 E. La Chiquita
Los Gatos, CA
2
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Christine Russell <crussell@unipixel.com >
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 5:33 PM
Marni Moseley
Comment on More Compressed Housing on Los Gatos Blvd at Artisan Wine Depot
Location
Dear Planning Commission Members-I was stunned to see the orange marker posts go up in the Artisan Wine Depot
location! I was heartbroken . High quality venues like Artisan are a big part of what makes Los Gatos a great place to
live. Having lived on Pine Street off LG Boulevard for 32 years it has been discouraging to deal with the increasing and
increasing traffic on Los Gatos Boulevard. So now we are going to lose Artisan and gain a Boston-like collection of
brownstones at zero lot lines? Sounds like Santana Row rather than Los Gatos. We are already going to add massive
amount of housing in the North Forty. Enough! Please reconsider.
Best Regards,
Christine Russell
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Shamshoian, Peter < Peter.Shamshoian@kla-tencor.com>
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 5:22 PM
Marni Moseley
Regarding the planned development on Los Gatos BLVD
Regarding the LG BLVD property formerly the Artisan Wine shop. I could have told you the wine place wasn't there for long. It was
overpriced . But to put up more high density housing is criminal along this strip. It is already way too crowded. I line on Lorna Alta
and it's painful to get to Lunardi's now. What have you guys done with the town? I moved here because it was a unique respite
from Silicon Valley. This development looks like it's plucked right out of North San Jose. There will be twice the amount of cars
accessing this property than is shown in the plan because that's what these types of housing attract. I work in Milpitas and they've
built these exact houses all around the area . It's grid lock with the young families anchored by young professionals, their Parents,
Aunts and Uncle s with three cars for every two bdrm condo . Don't wreck the town. Please .
Pete Shamshoian
1
From: Amy White Hockenbrock [mailto:amywhite@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 4 :30 PM
To: Planning
Subject: Lg Blvd and Shannon
I recently saw the story poles on LG Blvd and think that it is crazy. We already have impacted
houses across the street and schools that cannot accommodate more.
Unfortunately, It feels as if these developments go in on this side of town without any regard for
the number of cars and people it adds .
Please do not do this. We are on winter break at school so cannot make the planning meeting. I
disagree completely with the development.
Amy
Amy White Hockenbrock
amvwhite@ gmail.com
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Gwen Pinkston <gpinkston@comcast.net>
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:52PM
Marni Moseley
gpinkston@comcast.net
11 home project on the corner of Shannon and lG Blvd .
Most of the recent residential projects in town have been too dense, but this is beyond
reason.
I live on Calfhill Ct. behind Van Meter School and getting in and out of our street while
children are
entering or exiting Van Meter and Fisher is very difficult. Should an emergency vehicle
need to get in or out
there is a very good possibility that it could not do so because of the parked cars along
Nino Avenue,
yes, right under the uNo Parking" signs. Nino is not a wide street with cars parked along
both sides it is
very narrow.
Please issue a negative declaration for this project.
Thanks for your assistance,
Gwen Pinkston
107 Calfhill Ct
Los Gatos, CA 95032
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
sharonturzo <calicat8@comcast.net >
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:55 PM
Marni Moseley
Los Gatos Blvd/Shannon
This idea is obscene, inane, INSANE! Additional traffic, noise, possible speeders trying to make light/intersection
Shannon/LG Blvd asking for problems. Residing on Magneson Loop, residents already experience drivers cutting through
to avoid light. School traffic horrific; travel time .. disgusting. Considering/allowing change to residential is terrible.
Greedy owner of property benefits from commercial zoning ..... DO NOT ALLOW THIS! Mrs. Sharon Brunner Turzo
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Marni,
Alexandra Sung <alexandra.sung@gmail.com >
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 2 :18 PM
Marni Moseley
Concerns with II Vicinato (16212 Los Gatos Blvd)
I am writing to express my family's concerns with the proposed development at 16212 Los Gatos Blvd . We live in the
Laurel Mews development across the street, and our house (16860 Roberts Rd) has a direct view of the property. We
are not opposed to residential construction -even high -density development -assuming good architecture I site layout
and any impacts to schools and traffic are mitigated . (After all , if our own neighborhood was not built, we would not be
able to enjoy Los Gatos as we do.) Rather, our concerns relate to this specific proposal.
We often walk along Los Gatos Blvd, in front of the property, and the proposed project would shove the sidewalk
dangerously close to the street. We like that the w i dth of the existing parkstrip provides a buffer from the vehicle
traffic. Moreover, a lot of children pass in front of that property while headed to the nearby schools in the morning, and
given where the sun rises, the row of "brownstones" would cast a giant shadow on the sidewalk and intersection. I think
that creates a safety hazard for the children and other pedestrians.
In addition, we do not think that the architecture of the front row of homes is consistent with the surrounding
development, and the vertical post element at the corner of Los Gatos Blvd and Shannon Rd is especially inconsistent
and unattractive.
I also have some questions about the distance between the front units-mere inches, it appears. It seems as though
that would create the perfect place for pests and rodents to populate (and how is that in-line with fire code?).
Lastly, my assumption is that the developer is meeting FAR requirements, but the mass is not evenly distributed across
the site. Rather, the density is all pushed along Los Gatos Blvd , where it is most impactful to surrounding residents,
pedestrians, and anyone driving by the property. The second floors do not step back, and the height I bulk of the
individual homes is very overwhelming.
Please give my concerns consideration. Thank you .
Regards,
Alexandra Sung
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ms. Moseley;
brad clawsie <b rad@b7j0c.org >
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 4:15PM
Marni Moseley .
regarding proposal at current Wine Depot location
I am writing in reference to the proposal for homes on the lot currently occupied by the Wine Depot. My name
is Brad Clawsie, I am a resident at 130 College along with my family .
I fully understand the desire of the current owner to realize a gain by developing homes. The lot is currently
being exploited by Fisher parents filling the lot once a day to pick up students starting around 2:30pm. No
business owner should have to deal with that.
That said, I feel the current proposal is simply too dense. My assumption is that the developer probably also
understands this but is hoping to negotiate down to a lower density ... achieving their goal while appearing to be
conciliatory.
I am fine with a zoning change at this location as long as the density can be reduced while preserving viable
trees and hill views.
Thanks
Brad
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ms . Moseley
Robert Dunne <dunnelaw6383@ gmail.com >
Thu rs day, February 18 , 2016 9:45 AM
M arni M oseley
RE: I I Vi ci n at o development
I am writing to express my very strong objection to the planned
development of 11 Vicinato at the comer of Shannon and Los Gatos Blvd.
I live on Hilow Ct., just up Shannon from Los Gatos Blvd. I commute
that intersection a minimum of 30-50 times per week-ifyou include all of
the dr ive rs in my home, th at number goes to probably 100 times per week.
It it ou r access to the businesses in Los Gatos.
The increase in traffic alone will severely impact this intersection,
which is difficult enough with the no tum on red, the off-set from Roberts,
and the Fisher Middle School and Van Meter School traffic. The
addition of eleven families needing to use the intersection and/ or accessing
the devel opment from Los Gatos Blvd. will be untenabl e.
Significantly, if the development is approved, many of us up Shannon
and the numerous adjoining streets will likely use Cherry Blossom and
create a severe issue for B l ossom Hill School, which is already difficult
with parents dropp ing their kids off and picking them up, resulting in
traffic currently backing up both toward Shannon and LG/ Almaden Rd.
That back up and dense traffic will only become worse i f Cherry Blossom
needs to be used to avoid the impact of this development at the Shannon
and LG Blvd. intersection.
In addition, the development will completely obstruct the view of cars
on Shannon approaching LG Blvd., creating an even more dangerous
intersection.
And then there is the aesthetics of this deve l opment-jamtning eleven
houses on less than one acre is even n1ore ridiculous than the development
across Los Gatos B lvd.
T hank you for your consideration.
1
Rob Dunne
H ilow Ct.
Robert E. Dunne, Esq.
Robert E . Dunne Law Offices
16450 Los Gatos Blvd #110
Los Gatos, CA 95032
ph-408-357-7730
dunnelaw6383@gmail.com
May the road rise up to meet you
May the wind be always at your back
May the sun shine warm upon your face
And the rain fall soft upon your fields
And until we meet again
May God hold you in the palm of his hands
(Irish proverb)
2
Laurel Mews Homeowners Association
August 25, 2015
Attn : Sergeant Kal ipo Kauweloa
Town of Los Gatos
Police Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE : Laurel Mews Homeowners Association Request for Neighborhood Parkin g Plan (Pa rk ing Pe rmits)
Dear Sergeant Kalipo Kauweloa ,
I am submitting this formal written request to begin the process for a Neighbo rhood Pa rking Plan (Parking
Permits) on behalf of the Laurel Mews Homeowners Association Board of Directors. Laurel Mews is a 22
unit Planned Development built in 2013. The Association is located at 11871 Los Gatos Bo ulevard and is
surrounded by Mitchell Avenue , Roberts Road and George Street in Los Gatos, CA.
The residents of the Community have experienced difficulty finding parking fo r themselves and their
guests on Mitchell Avenue , Roberts Road and George Street during afternoon and eveni ng hours. The
res idents of the Community believe that the primary reason for the lack of parking in the ne ighborhood
during these times is due to the members of the nearby business, 'YogaSource' (located at 16185 Los
Gatos Blvd . Los Gatos, CA 95032), using these streets for parking while attend ing yoga classes.
The residents of the Laurel Mews Homeowners Association would like to obtain permission from the
Town of Los Gatos to initiate an even ing parking permit program to prevent non-residents from pa r king on
Mitchell Avenue, Roberts Road and George Street during the hours of 6 :00 PM to 6:00AM, seven days
per week.
Sincerely,
On Behalf of the Board of Directors
/7
/'
Compass Management Group, Inc.
77 Las Co linas Lane
San Jose, CA 95119
(408) 226-3300 office
(408) 226-3406 fax
ccordi@gocompass .com
Compass Management Group, Inc.
77 Las Colinas Lan e, San Jo se, CA
Office (408) 226-3300 I Fa x (408) 226-3406
The brownstones fronting Los Gatos have <1' gap between each unit, ra ising significant health,
safety and environmental concerns. No mitigations provided to prevent rodents, critters, garbage
and mold from collecting and growing i n the narrow passages. Potential risk for small children
and pets to get stuck between units. Front of buildings set too close to the sidewalk/street
contrasts with all other residential and commercial buildings in the area.
II Vicinato is an unflattering design mess that does not belong on the
corridors leading into downtown Los Gatos. The architects describe it as
"urban village" with tall boxy buildings, flat roofs mixed with some
craftsman style homes, and other architectural elements that are foreign to
the nearby area. Ignores established residential style guides .
.. ..... __ ··:.......•---:.--· ... _ ----.,. __ -~-...... ""' .... __ ----··-
Los Gatos U'ban Vitl<lge ·n Vicin<~to' riCO """---·-... -~----..... -., ___ .......... ~ ...... ,. ___ ,_...,. ...... ..__
~:'' ::.:::.:::-:.:.'?!:'.:;:.;::---::~
, ...... ..._ __ .. ... eoo. __
=:c..o,_..,..
........ ""' ............
...... ·--· ---~ , ....... _
<".-.. c...·--. -·-
II Vicinato: Big city brownstone styles will creates a massive wall, dwarf
surrounding homes, erode Los Gatos small town character. The units are set too
close to the sidewalk/street and blocks the remaining hillside views a long the Los
Gatos Blvd corridor.
The scope of the construction's impacts is not accurately reported in the MND. The MND
reports on 4 schools within a 'l4 mile (page 18) but there are actually 7 schools within this
distance -Van Meter, Fischer, Shir Hadesh , Shannon Parent Nursery, Growing
Footprints, Cavalry Preschool and Jr K, Green Hills. Also , there are more schools within
2 miles -Mariposa Montessori , Hillbrook, Blossom Hill, Grace Preschool , Los Gatos
High, and Yavneh Day School. Each of these well regarded schools are at all time high
enrollment capacities, and the development area is a cross-section that leads to all of
these schools. Why does the Traffic Report ignore these realities with real potential
negative impacts to the community?
In summary, the Applicant's proposal is an example of an ambitious plan to squeeze 11 single
family houses into a small lot-creates a development that is not compatible with the
surrounding area , brings New York City style buildings into town , and the Applicant's MND lacks
solutions to adequately address safety, environmental and hazardous impacts , among other
negative affects. Furthermore the Applicant has not made a strong case for the zoning change.
We strongly urge the Planning Commission to reject the proposal and thank you for your time
and considerations.
Sincerely,
Barnaby James and Linda Yung
16500 Grant Bishop Lane
Brownhomes is jarring and will set a precedent for others to develop bulky and massive
Big City type of homes. II Vicinato's brownstones borrow from commercial building
design by having a flat roof for Air Conditioning I HVAC with a very boxy design. The
units along Los Gatos Blvd are very repetitive with only minor color variations. Why did
the Applicant have his architect and designer deviate so drastically from the single-family
and two-story residential home style guide?
(See Los_Gatos_Residentiai_Design_Guidelines_FINAL_rev_030911.pdf for single-family and
two-story homes).
3. Every other building in the immediate area (including commercial buildings) are set back
10-15 feet from the sidewalk with significant landscaping from the edge of sidewalk to
the front doors. The set back for the II Vicinato homes fronting Los Gatos Blvd is a mere
2-3 feet from the edge of the sidewalk to the front door. With the building fronts being so
close to the sidewalk and Los Gatos Blvd , there is not enough rea l estate left to
incorporate significant landscaping to soften the concrete wall created by II Vicinato's 5
brownstones and 1 corner unit.
4 . Even within II Vicianto's community, the design of the development is inconsistent. The
homes facing Los Gatos Blvd . are modern looking brownstones that look like commercial
buildings with no yard , set back and significant landscaping . The homes at the rear are
more in the American Craftsman style common in Los Gatos.
5. Based on the Arborist's Report, the plan will require eliminating 15 protected trees with 6
more listed as "debatable", including a giant cedar tree. The development only provides
minimal landscaping throughout the community, and we believe this is a bad trade-off for
the town . In regards to scenic views , the Applicant's Mitigation Report (see MND Dec.
2015) claims that the development has minimal to no impact on any hillside views, but
this is not true . The current lot provide plentiful views and angles of the hillside and tall
cedar trees for the community to enjoy, from pedestrians on the sidewalk to the
commuters on the road from various directions. Please see our supporting pictures
enclosed.
6. Regarding impacts to construction traffic, we believe the Traffic Report by Hexagon and
the Applicant's MND does not take into consideration how heavily travelled and utilized
the area is currently , and is providing insufficient noise, pollutant and overall safety
mitigations. When construction begins at Bam on a weekday, will children and families
be forced to cover their ears as an excavator roars at the intersection? Where will the
construction machines and other vehicles park? With no detailed mitigation about where
construction machines and crew will be allowed to park or store their equipment, we fear
there will be a increased chance for children , joggers, dog walkers, parents and their
strollers, to get hit by a vehicle because they have to tiptoe around construction
machines and trucks.
As for the proposed residential project outlined in the site plan , we would echo many of the
concerns from the design review (htt p://www.losgatosca.g ov/DocumentCenterNiew/15759)
conducted by the Cannon Group:
1. The II Vicinato homes along Los Gatos Blvd are taller than any nearby res idential house
and will dwarf the corridor and block the last significant hillside views leading into
downtown from this direction , and the small gaps between the 6 units facing Los Gatos
Boulevard will pose a health , environment and safety hazard as outlined below.
-The II Vicinato houses fronting Los Gatos Blvd have heights of 29' 8" and
29' 11". In comparison , the Laurel Mews homes across the street have a height
variance from 20' to 25', with the majority in the low 20' range , and each unit
facing Los Gatos Blvd . have at least 16' courtyards between them , front doors
that do not face Los Gatos Blvd , and 10-15 feet of landscaping from the sidewalk
to where the houses begin .
-The II Vicinato houses fronting Los Gatos Blvd are also ALL boxy/rectangular
shaped with little design variance and have only a few inches gap in between the
units (See Cannon Design Report). The small gaps between the brownstone
units raises several safety, environmental and health concerns . First, the gaps
will receive little sunlight, causing a dark and damp environment that breeds mold
and rodents. The brownstone units have no significant set back from the sidewalk
and street and can easily become a depostiory for garbage and other debris that
is blown from the street. More hazardous , what is there to mitigate concerns
about a small toddler/child or pet getting trapped in the gaps that run the entire
depth of the brownstone units since the buildings are only a few feet from the
sidewalk?
-Given the need for a garage/basement the homes are pushed % a floor above
grade and have HVAC on the roof so they are more like 3 floor buildings, and will
cast long shadows and darken the street making this section more dangerous for
cyclists , walkers and other commuters, especially school children and families
who walk this intersection for school.
-The Applicant calls these units "Brownstone" in reference to a type of raised
townhome common in Manhattan. The net effect of this des ign creates a wall that
will cast long shadows, and blocks the serene views of the hillside I cedar trees
that currently exists at this stretch of Los Gatos Blvd, Roberts Rd ., and Shannon
Rd . intersections . The brownstone look is incompatible with surrounding
development, and we are concerned that the long shadows can heighten the
chances for traffic collisions, pedestrian to get hit by a car, or worst.
2. From a design perspective these home are a poor fit for the town of Los Gatos -many of
the homes in the area are American Craftsman and a block of New York City
February 18, 2015
Dear Members of the Los Gatos Planning Commission ,
We believe the Applicant has not provided sufficient support for the need to rezone the site to
CH:PD; and furthermore, the proposed development of 11 single-family homes will have
profound negative impacts to the surrounding area -erodes Los Gatos small town character and
sets a precedent that the town finds Manhattan style residential designs acceptable .
In the site plan Project Narrative (http://www.losgatosca .goviDocumentCenterNiewl15763) the
Applicant argues that the site has been unsuccessful as a commercial zoned location since
2006 and cannot support a commercial enterprise for two primary reasons:
1. Access to the site is "challenging" and a business that needs a lot of customers requires
better ingress I egress
2. Competition from nearby shopping malls at the Los Gatos Blvd I Blossom Hill Rd
intersection
To refute these claims, we point out the following :
1. There are at least three successful businesses started since 2006 directly adjacent and
across from the site:
a. YogaSource at 16185 Los Gatos Blvd
b. OrangeTheory Fitness at 16250 Los Gatos Blvd
c. AJ Tutoring at 16275 Los Gatos Blvd
2. The above mentioned businesses are not struggling -in fact the large number of
customers they attract have exhausted all of their parking , in addition has placed parking
pressures on nearby public streets. Customers frequently park on the street and
surrounding businesses on Roberts Rd, Mitchell St, George St, to name a few. The
Laurel Mews HOA has even filed a request in August 2015 for a Neighborhood Parking
Permit because of the large number of customers from these nearby business . Many
other nearby businesses such as Autobahn LLC have "No YogaSource parking " signs .
These examples prove that a commercial business can do well at 16212 Los Gatos Blvd.
3. The Applicant rents parking spaces from the site to YogaSource for their customers to
park -clearly ingress I egress is not an issue for these customers.
4 . The site is served by entrances on Los Gatos Blvd and Shannon Road -access to the
site is not an issue. Most nearby businesses, including YogaSource , Orange Theory
Fitness , AJ Tutoring, and NC Boardshop have very limited access (single entrance only)
and still manage to attract a large number of customers.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tom Lackovic <tom@lackovicandassociates.com>
Wednesday, February 17 , 2016 4:21 PM
Marni Moseley
Proposed development at 16212 Los Gatos Blvd., Los Gatos .
I was terrified last evening when I stopped at the intersection of Roberts Road and los Gatos Blvd., looked across the
street, and saw the elevation poles that had been erected on the Artisan Wine Depot location.
If structures are built to the height of the poles and as close to the street as indicated, the density and sheer bulk of the
proposed construction w ill present an overwhelming negative visual'shock to the senses' to anyone approaching the
intersection.
A revised site plan must be developed to increase the setback of structures, minimize elevations and (unfortunately for
the developer) decrease the number of permitted dwellings.
Please , do not permit this development to further diminish the quality and ambience ofthe Town of los Gatos.
A resident living at 135 Hillbrook Drive, Respectfully, Thomas lackovic
Sent from my iPad
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Liz Dillon <liz.dillon@comcast.net >
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:25PM
Marni Moseley
Mike Dillon
16212 Los Gatos Blvd
Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission,
As a Los Gatos home-owner for 15 years, I have watched traffic increase exponentially along Los Gatos Blvd . The traffic
study for the new development compares the 11 new houses to the former used car dealership. This is highly
misleading, as the dealership space has not been in the location for many years . Since then, two exercise studios
(Orange Theory and YogaSource) and a dense housing development have been constructed . Traffic is so bad during
school and commute hours, that I am reluctant to leave my home to shop in the local stores.
I urge you to reject this plan . If you wish to change the zoning from commercial to mixed use, then limit the density to
2-4 houses. Better yet, build a park.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Dillon
105 Highland Ave
Los Gatos, CA 95030
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To :
Subject:
Tony Nanez <tonynanez@me.com >
Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:04AM
Marni Moseley
artisan wine lot development
Ms Moseley,our fine town is rapidly becoming the (CITY) of los gatos.
as a resident of LG since 1975,1ately the planning commission has done an injustice to this community by allowing
overbuilding on small lots and have created eye soars and congestion that will be irreversible to the future of our kids
and grandkids.what use to take 5 minutes to get to downtown LG is now 10-15 minutes from the blossom hi ll area.
please reconsider not building 11monster homes on the corner of shannon and lg blvd.
Tony Nanez
tonynanez@me.com
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Marni,
Kippkramer@aol .com
Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:52 AM
Marni Moseley
kipp.kramer@oracle.com
(no subject)
I just wanted to write to the Planning Commission about the development on the corner of Shannon
and Los Gatos Blvd. I live on Cherrystone Drive.
I am currently in the Sierra's and we just got our power back after being off most of the
night...that's why I am writing you so late.
This development along with many others on the Blvd. is changing the character of it's nice wide
open and welcoming image. The town seems to walling off the street and creating a tunnel
effect. If the story lines are any indication of what is to come, these high density houses are way
too tall and way too close to the street and blocks one of the prettiest views of our mountains as we
approach town. Please, please don't let this happen! In addition, the traffic on the Blvd. is already
so bad and adding 11 more families to the mix will only bring more kids going to school, more
adults pulling out to go to work ... and we have had enough.
We know people love Los Gatos and we welcome new residents ... but not at the cost of the quality
of life to those of us already here. Please, please reconsider this development.
Thank you!
Carolyn and Kipp Kramer
842 Cherrystone Drive
408-375-7905
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bill Posada <bill@cainterpreters.com>
Thursday, February 18, 2016 12:48 PM
Marni Moseley
Comments on development on Shannon and los gatos Blvd
This high density homes is totally unacceptable. Too many homes on lot, too high-blocks mountain views, cause traffic
congestion and negative impact on schools.
Cut number of homes by 80%.
Bill Posada
Sent from my iPhone
1
ORDINANCE NO.
Draft Ordinance: subject to
modification by Planning
Commission based on
deliberations and direction
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING THE TOWN CODE EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE
FROM CH TO CH:PD FOR PROPERTY AT
16212 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD (APNs 523-06-010 AND 523-06-011)
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
The Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos is hereby amended to change the zoning on
property at 16212 Los Gatos Boulevard (Santa Clara County Assessor Parcel Numbers 523-06-
010 and 523-06-011) as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is part ofthis
Ordinance, from CH (Restricted Highway Commercial) to CH:PD (Restricted Highway
Commercial, Planned Development).
SECTION II
The PD (Planned Development Overlay) zone established by this Ordinance authorizes
the following construction and use of improvements:
1. Removal of existing site improvements.
2. Construction of 10 market rate single-family detached residences.
3. Provision of one low income BMP unit.
4. Landscaping, private street, parking and other improvements shown and required on the
Official Development Plans.
5. Us es permitted are those specified in the CH (Restricted Highway Commercial) zone by
Sections 29.60.420 (Permitted Uses) and 29.20.185 (Conditional Uses) of the Zoning
Ordinance, as those sections exist at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance, or as they
may be amended in the future. However, no use listed in Section 29.20.185 is allowed
unless specifically authorized by this Ordinance, or by a Conditional Use Permit.
EXHIBIT 1 0
Page 1 of23
SECTION III
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All provisions of the Town Code apply, except when the Official Development Plan
specifically shows otherwise.
SECTION IV
Architecture and Site approval is required before construction and site improvement
construction work is performed, whether or not a permit is required for the work and before any
permit for construction is issued. Construction permits shall only be in a manner complying with
Section 29 .80.130 of the Town Code.
SECTIONV
The attached Exhibit A (Map), and Exhibit B (Official Development Plans) noted as
Attachment _ of the report to the Town Council for the meeting of _, 2016, are
part of the Official Development Plan. The following performance standards must be complied
with before issuance of any grading, or construction permits:
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The Official Development Plans provided are
conceptual in nature. Final building footprints and building designs shall be determined
during the Architecture and Site approval process. Colors and building materials shown
on the Official Development Plan are not approved and shall be reviewed during the
Architecture and Site approval process.
2 . TOWN INDEMNITY. Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires
that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend ,
indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third
party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a
condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set
forth in the approval , and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney.
3. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL REQUIRED. Separate Architecture and
Page 2 of23
Site (A&S) application approval will be required for each of the new residences.
Architectural details, shall be refined as part of this process with input from the Town's
Architectural Consultant. The Development Review Committee shall be the deciding
body for the Architecture and Site applications.
4. SUBDIVISION REQUIRED . A tentative map application shall be approved and
recorded for the project prior to the issuance of building permits. The Development
Review Committee may be the deciding body of the tentative map.
5. BELOW MARKET PRICE (BMP) UNITS. The developer shall provide one (1) BMP
unit, within the project. The BMP unit will be sold to one low income recipient through
the Town's BMP Program .
6 . DEED RESTRICTION . A deed restriction shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any
building permits, stating that the BMP residence must be purchased and maintained as a
below market price unit pursuant to the Town's BMP Ordinance and requirements. The
developer shall enter into a Below Market Price Agreement with the Town prior to
issuance of building permits.
7. FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN . A final landscape plan shall b e reviewed by the Town's
Consulting Landscape Architect and approved as part of the Architecture and Site
process. Minimum tree size at time of planting shall be 24-inch box.
8. WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT. The proposed
landscaping shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the
State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee
based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working
landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
9. SETBACKS. Minimum setbacks are as shown on the Official Development Plans.
Setbacks may not be reduced to less than what is shown on the Official Development
Plans.
10. BUILDING HEIGHT. The maximum height of the new residences shall be 30 feet.
11. HOUSING SIZE. No additional square footage shall be permitted for any ofthe new
residences.
12 . GREEN BUILDING. The new residences shall be designed to achieve compliance with
Page 3 of23
GreenPoint Rated Standards for green building certification. The GreenPoint checklist
shall be completed by a Certified Green Building Professional and submitted to the Town
prior to issuance of a building permit.
13 . ACCESSORY STRUCTURES . Any accessory structures shall be governed by Section
29.40.015 ofthe Town Code.
14. OUTDOOR LIGHTING. All exterior building and outdoor lighting shaH be shielded and
directed away from neighboring properties, to shine on the project site only. Lighting
shaH be the minimum needed for pedestrian safety and security. Lighting specifications
shall be reviewed as part of the Architecture and Site process.
15. AESTHETICS MITIGATION MEASURE AES-1. Prior to approval of the Planned
Development, the applicant shall review the design review comments prepared by Canon
Design Group and revise the project plans to comply with the Town 's Residential Design
Guidelines and General Plan goals and policies. Revised project plans will be subject to
the Town 's design review process.
16. AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-1. To limit the project's construction-
related dust, criteria pollutant, and precursor emissions, the following BAAQMD-
recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13 , Section 2485 of California Code of
Page 4 of23
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at
all access points.
g . All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h . A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
Lead Agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person
shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone
number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
17. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE BI0-1. If noise generation,
ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other construction activities begin during the
nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31 ), or if construction activities are suspended
for at least two weeks and recommence during the nesting bird season, then the project
developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey for
nesting birds. The survey shall be performed within suitable nesting areas on and adjacent
to the site to ensure that no active nests would be disturbed during project
implementation. This survey shall be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the
initiation of construction activities. A report documenting survey results and plan for
active bird nest avoidance (if needed) shall be completed by the qualified biologist and
submitted to the Town of Los Gatos for approval prior to initiation of construction
activities.
• If no active bird nests are detected during the survey, then construction activities
can proceed as scheduled. However, if an active bird nest of a native species is
detected during the survey, then a plan for active bird nest avoidance shall be
prepared to determine and clearly delineate a temporary protective buffer area
around each active nest, with buffer area size depending on the nesting bird
species, existing site conditions, and type of proposed construction activities. The
protective buffer area around an active bird nest is typically 75-250 feet,
determined at the discretion of the qualified biologist and in compliance with any
applicable project permits.
Page 5 of23
• To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an active bird nest will occur, no
construction activities shall occur within the protective buffer area(s) until the
juvenile birds have fledged (left the nest), and there is no evidence of a second
attempt at nesting, as determined by the qualified biologist.
18. CULTURAL RESOURCES MITGATION MEASURE CR-1. In the event that any
potentially significant archaeological resources (i.e., potential historical resources or
unique archaeological resources) are discovered, the contractor shall stop work within 50
meters (about 160 feet) ofthe find until the find can be evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, notification shall be made and
appropriate mitigation measures shall be developed and implemented with the
concurrence of the Town.
19. CULTURAL RESOURCES MITGATION MEASURE CR-2. Ifhuman remains are
found during construction activities, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or
any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the
archeological monitor and the coroner of Santa Clara County are contacted. If it is
determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native
American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage
Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely
descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make
recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for
means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and
associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097 .98 . The
landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human
remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location
not subject to further disturbance if:
a. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the
MLD failed to make a recommendation with-in 24 hours after being notified by
the Commission;
b. The descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; ot:
c. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the
descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails
Page 6 of23
to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
20. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MEASURE HAZ-1. The applicant
shall retain a qualified contractor to conduct a visual inspection/pre-demolition survey,
and sampling if determined necessary by the qualified contractor, prior to the demolition
of the structure, to determine the presence of a sbestos-containing materials. All
potentially friable asbestos-containing materials, if present, shall be removed under a
permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in accordance with National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants guidelines prior to building demolition
or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demolition activities shall be undertaken
in accordance with Cal/ OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of
Regulations, Section 1529. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also
subject to air district regulations contained in air district Regulation 11 , Rule 2.
21. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for trees
approved for removal prior to the issuance of demolition or grading permits.
22. REPLACEMENT TREES. New trees shall be planted to mitigate the loss of trees being
removed. The number of trees shall be determined using the canopy replacement table in
the Tree Protection Ordinance. New trees shall be double staked and shall be planted
prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy permits. If the required number of
replacement trees cannot be accommodated on the project site, the applicant may pay an
in-lieu fee for any trees that are not planted.
23. TREE FENCING. Protective tree fencing shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees
that are to be retained, and shall remain through all phases of grading and construction.
Fencing shall be six foot high cyclone attached to two-inch diameter steel posts drive 18
inches into the ground and spaced no further than 1 0 feet apart. Include a tree protection
fencing plan with the construction plans.
24. CC&R's. A copy of the CC&R's shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town
Attorney, Engineering Division and Planning Division prior to map recordation.
25. RECYCLING. All wood , metal, glass and aluminum materials generated from
demolition work shall be deposited to a company which will recycle the materials .
Receipts from the company(s) accepting these materials, noting type and weight of
material , shall be submitted to the Town prior to the demolition inspection.
Page 7 of23
26. FINAL UTILITY LOCATIONS. The applicant shall submit plans showing the final
locations and screening of all exterior utilities, including but not limited to , backflow
preventers, Fire Department connections, transformers, utility boxes and utility meters.
Utility devices shall be screened to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development. The plans shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of
building permits for new construction.
27. NOISE MITGATION MEASURE NOl-l. The applicant shall have an acoustical
consultant review the construction design details and materials to ensure that appropriate
noise control measures are· incorporated into the project so noise levels in exterior living
areas and interiors of all proposed residences would be reduced to "normally acceptable"
levels, as determined by the Town 's Noise Element. The acoustical consultant shall
review the construction plans, building elevations, and floor plans prior to construction to
calculate expected interior and exterior noise levels and ensure compliance with Town
policies and state noise regulations .
• If determined necessary by the construction-level acoustical analysis , appropriate
building construction techniques including sound-rated windows, doors, and
building fa9ade treatments including sound rated wall construction, acoustical
caulking, etc., shall be required for residential units facing public streets. Building
sound insulation requirements shall include the provision of forced-air mechanical
ventilation for all residential units, so that window s could be kept closed at th e
occupant's discretion to control noise.
28. NOISE MITGA TION MEASURE NOI-2. The following language shall be included on
any permits issued for the project site.
a. Noise-generating construction activities shall be limited to weekdays between 8
AM and 8 PM and weekends and holidays between 9 AM and 7 PM;
b . Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are
in good condition and appropriate for the equipment;
c. Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; and
d. Utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources
where feasible technology exists.
Page 8 of23
Building Division
29. PERMITS REQUIRED. A Demolition Permit is required for any demolition work
necessary for the project and a Building Permit is required for construction of each of the
new residences and detached garages. Separate permits are required for electrical ,
mechanical, and plumbing work as necessary.
30. SIZE OF PLANS. Submit four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36".
31. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The Performance Standards and any subsequent
conditions of approval must be blue-lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction
plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building
permit application detailing how the conditions will be addressed .
32. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS. Obtain a Building Department Demolition
Application and a Bay Area Air Quality Management Application from the Building
Department Service Counter. Once the demolition form has been completed, all
signatures obtained, and written verification from PG&E that all utilities have been
disconnected, return the completed form to the Building Department Service Counter
with the J# Certificate, PG&E verification, and three (3) sets of site plans to include all
existing structures, existing utility service lines such as water, sewer, and PG&E. No
demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a permit from the Town.
33. STREET NAMES & HOUSE NUMBERS. Requests for new street name and house
numbers must be submitted to the Building Division prior to application for building
permits.
34. SOILS REPORT. A soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official ,
containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted
with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil
engineer specializing in soils mechanics.
35. SHORING. Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which
exceed four (4) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building,
adjacent property or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be
prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall conform to theCal/OSHA
regulations.
36. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS. A pad certificate prepared by a licen sed civil engineer
Page 9 of23
or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation
inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as
specified in the soils report and that the building pad elevation, on-site retaining wall
locations , and elevations have been prepared according to approved plans . Horizontal and
vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil
engineer for the following items:
a . Building pad elevation
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation corner locations
d. Retaining Walls
37 . RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS. The residences shall be
designed with adaptability features for multiple family residences per Town Resolution
1994-61:
a. Wood backing (2 " x 8" minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at
water closets, showers, and bathtubs located 34-inches from the floor to the center
of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars.
b. All passage doors shall be at lea st 32-inches wide on the accessible floor.
c. Primary entrance shall a 36-inch wide door including a 5'x5 ' level landing , no
more than 1/2-inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level with an 18-
inch clearance at interior strike edge.
d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance.
38 . TITLE 24 ACCESSIBILITY. On-site parking facilities shall comply with the latest
California Title 24 Accessibility Standards. Work shall include, but not be limited to, on-
site general path of travel accessibility to building entrances from parking facilities and
sidewalks.
39. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE. All required California Title 24 Energy
Compliance Forms must be blue-lined on the plans.
40. BLUEPRINT FOR CLEAN BAY. The Town standard Santa Clara County Valley
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (24x36) shall be part of the plan
submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division
Service Counter for a fee of$2 or at San Jose Blue Print for a fee or online at
Page 10 of23
www.losgatosca.gov/building.
41. BACKWATER VALVE. The scope of this project may require the installation of a
sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide
information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the
installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District
(WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood
level rims less than 12-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
42. PLANS. The construction plans shall be prepared under the direct supervision of a
licensed architect or engineer. (Business and Professionals Code Section 5538).
43. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS. When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704,
the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be
submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit.
The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out and signed by all
requested parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the
Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building.
44. APPROVALS REQUIRED. The project requires the following departments and agencies
approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development -Planning Division
b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department
c. Santa Clara County Fire Department
d. West Valley Sanitation District
e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate
school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to
permit issuance.
f. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
45. HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY. The project shall comply with the Housing Accessibility
requirements of2007 California Building Code Chapter llA.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
Page 11 of23
46. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Plans , Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards. All work
shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall
be kept clear of all job-related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall
not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the
sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued.
The Developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours.
Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the
Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense.
47. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the
conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed
and approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or
conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
48. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will reqmre a
Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction
security. It is the responsibility of the Applicant/Developer to obtain any necessary
encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not
limited to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), AT&T , Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water
District, and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Copies of any
approvals or permits must be submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks
and Public Works Department prior to releasing a building permit.
49. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS : The Developer or their representative shall notify the
Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining
to on-site drainage facilities , grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way.
Failure to do so will result in rejection of work that went on without inspection.
50. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer shall repair or
replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or
removed because of the Developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited
to: curbs, gutters , sidewalks, driveways, signs , pavements, raised pavement markers,
thermoplastic pavement markings , etc., shall be repaired and replaced to a condition
equal to or better than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps,
Page 12 of23
logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal
shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional
compensation shall be allowed therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or
replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall
comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The Developer shall request a
walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction
to verify existing conditions.
51. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street
and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations
on works hours , protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe
manner may be required.
52 . PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan
review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department.
53. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the
issuance of any permits or recordation of the Final Map.
54. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a
Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California, and submitted to the Town
Engineer for review and approval.
55. GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work
except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of the Town Code (Grading
Ordinance). The grading permit application and plans shall be made to the Engineering
Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The
grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall locati on, driveway,
utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a
table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the
Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with
the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). A
separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street, is needed
for grading within the building footprint.
Page 13 of23
56. DRAINAGE STUDY: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, submit drainage
calculation for th e proposed onsite storm drainage system and connection to the public
main.
57. TREE REMOVAL: A tree removal permit is required prior to the issuance of a grading
or building permit , whichever comes first.
58. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E.
Main Street, may be required for on-site retaining walls. On-site walls are not reviewed
or approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works.
59. FINAL MAP: A final map is required. Two copies of the final map shall be submitted to
the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department for review and
approval. Submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports and the appropriate
fee. The map shall be recorded before any permits for new construction are issued.
60. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT: All sewer connection and treatment plant
capacity fees shall be paid either immediately prior to the recordation of any subdivision
or tract maps with respect to the subject property or properties , or immediately prior to
the issuance of a sewer connection permit, which ever event occurs first. Written
confirmation of payment of these fees shall be provided prior to map recordation.
61. DEDICATIONS: The following shall be dedicated on the final map. The dedication
shall be recorded before any permits are issued :
a. Sidewalk Easement to cover the new proposed sidewalk.
b. Public Utility Easement , Private Utility Easement, Private Ingress/Egress
Easement, and Private Storm Drainage Easement as shown on the map.
c. Emergency Access Easement for access onto the private road.
62. DEMOLITION: The existing building shall be demolished prior to recordation of the
parcel map affected by this existing building.
63. SOILS REPORT: One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the
application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site
grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design and erosion control. The
reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance
with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code.
Page 14 of23
64. SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE: The geotechnical study shall provide
recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations , retaining walls ,
concrete slab-on-grade construction, excavation, drainage, on-site utility trenching and
pavement sections. All recommendations of the investigation shall be incorporated into
project plans.
65. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant's engineers shall prepare
and submit a design-level geotechnical/geological investigation for review and approval
by the Town. The applicant's soils engineer sha ll review the final grading and drainage
plans to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and site
drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments.
The applicant's soils engineer 's approval shall then be conveyed to the Town either by
letter or by signing the plans.
66. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction , all
excavations and grading shall be inspected by the applicant's soils engineer prior to
placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as
anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report , and recommend appropriate changes
in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the
construction observation and testing should be documented in an "as-built" letter/report
prepared by the applicants ' soils engineer and subm itted to the Town before final rele ase
of any occupancy permit is granted.
67. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological
recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Feasibility Proposed Residentia l
Developm ent 16212 Los Gatos Boulevard by Milstone Geotechnical, dated June 9, 2014,
and any subsequently required report or addendum. Subsequent reports or addendum are
subject to peer review by the Town 's consultant and costs shall be borne by the applicant.
68. JOINT TRENCH PLANS: Joint trench plans shall b e reviewed and approved by the
Town prior to recordation of a map. The joint trench plans shall include street and /or site
lighting and associated photometries. A letter shall be provided by PG&E stating that
public street light billing will by Rule LS2A , and that private li ght s shall be metered with
billing to the homeowners association. Pole numbers , assigned by PG&E , shall be clearly
delineated on the plans.
Page 15 of23
69. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS : The following improvements shall be installed by the
Developer. Plan s for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered
civil engineer, reviewed and approved by the Town, and guaranteed by contract, Faithful
Performance Security and Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of a building
permit or the recordation of a map. The improvement s must be completed and accepted
by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
a. Los Gatos Boulevard: Construct new curb, gutter, and detached sidewalk with
park strip.
b. Shannon Road:
1. Construct new curb , gutter, driveway, and detached sidewalk with park
strip.
11. Re-stripe to maintain existing right turn lane, provide an extended left tum
lane, and add a green bike lane along the frontage from property line to
Los Gatos Boulevard. A sidewalk easement near the corner of the
intersection may be required to accommodate these improvements.
c. Los Gatos Boulevard/Shannon Road Intersection:
1. Modify the northeast corner of the intersection and install pedestrian
crosswalk signal for crossing from the pork-chop island to the sidewalk at
the project corner.
11. Construct a curb ramp in compliance with ADA standards.
70. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: The Applicant shall enter into an
agreement to construct public improvements in accordance with Town Code Section
24.40.020. The applicant shall supply suitable securities for all public improvements that
are part of the development in a form acceptable to the Town in the amount of 100%
(performance) and 100% (labor and materials) prior to issuance of any permit. Applicant
shall provide two (2) copies of documents verifying the cost of the public improvements
to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department.
71. WATER DESIGN: Water plans prepared by SJWC must be rev iewed and approved
prior to issuance of any permit.
72. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed
utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines
Page 16 of23
underground, as required by Town Code Section 27 .50.015(b ). All new utility services
shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable televi s ion
service. The Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments
from any and all utility service providers before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new
building can be issued. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply approval for
final alignment or design ofthese facilities.
73. FENCING : Any fencing proposed within 200-feet of an intersection shall comply with
Town Code Section §23.10.080.
74. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements,
including but not limiting to trees and hedges, will need to abide by Town Code Sections
23.1 0 .080, 26.1 0.065 , and 29.40.030.
75 . TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: The Developer shall pay the project's
proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative
development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the
Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued. The fee shall
be paid before issuance of a building permit. The traffic impact mitigation fee for this
project shall be calculated from the final plans using the current fee and rate schedules in
effect at the time the building permit is issued , using a trip generation rate based on the
comparison of existing and proposed uses.
76 . CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture 's rated gross
vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (1 0,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the
portion of a street which abuts property in a re sidential zone without prior to approval
from the Town Engineer.
77 . HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on-or off-site shall not occur during the morning
or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and -9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p .m. and
6:00 p .m .). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall work with the
Town Building Department and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a traffic
control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on
or off of the project site. This may include, but is not limited to provisions for the
Developer/Owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of
construction and hauling activities , or providing additional traffic control. Coordination
Page 17 of23
with other significant projects in the area may also be required. All trucks transporting
materials to and from the site shall be covered.
78. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All subdivision improvements and site improvements
construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy
equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
weekdays and 9:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. weekends and holidays. The Town may authorize,
on a case-by-case basis, alternate construction hours. The Applicant/Subdivider shall
provide written notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours.
Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town.
79. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and
9:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities
shall be allowed . No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding
eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located
within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to
twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of
the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA.
80. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Applicant shall submit a construction
management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic
Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security fencing, employee parking, construction
staging area, construction trailer, and proposed outhouse locations.
81. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West
Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used
or reused. A sanitary sewer clean-out is required for each property at the property line or
location specify by the Town.
82. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate one or more of the following
measures:
a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography.
b. Minimize impervious surface areas.
c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas.
d. Use permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum.
e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
Page 18 of23
83. LANDSCAPING: In finalizing the landscape plan for the biotreatment area, it is
recommended that the landscape architect ensure that the characteristics of the selected
plants are similar to those of the plants listed for use in bioretention areas in Appendix D
of the SCVURPPP C.3 Storm water Handbook.
84. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so
that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of
grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks
shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to
blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum
of three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,
parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of
blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur.
Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the
Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction
activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least
one late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets
soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily
basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork
activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH. All
trucks hauling soil , sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.
85. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest
requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for
Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading
and erosion control ordinance and other generally accepted engineering practices for
ero sion control as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction
activities.
86. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through
curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected
to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING -
Flows to Bay" NPDES required language. On-site drainage systems for all projects shall
include one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional
Page 19 of23
NPDES Permit. These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing
runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry
wells are to be used they shall be placed 10' minimum from adjacent property line and/or
right of way.
87. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN : A storm water management shall be
included with the grading permit application per the amended provisions C.3 of the
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit
No. CAS612008. The plan shall delineate source control measures and BMPs together
with the sizing calculations. The plan shall be certified by a professional pre-qualified by
the Town. In the event that the storm water measures proposed on the Planning approval
differ significantly from those certified on the Building/Grading Permit, the Town may
require a modification of the Planning approval prior to release of the Building Permit.
The Applicant may elect to have the Planning submittal certified to avoid this possibility.
88. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CERTIFICATION: Certification from the
biotreatment soils provider is required and shall be given to Engineering Division
Inspection staff a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to delivery of the material to the job
site. Additionally deliver tags from the soil mix shall also be provided to Engineering
Division Inspection staff. Sample Certification can be found here:
http ://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/nd wp.shtml?zoom highlight=BIOTR EATMENT +SOIL
89 . AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS: The property
owner/homeowner's association shall enter into an agreement with the Town for
maintenance of the stormwater filtration devices required to be installed on this project
by the Town's Stormwater Discharge Permit and all current amendments or
modifications. The agreement shall specify that certain routine maintenance shall be
performed by the property owner/homeowner's association and shall specify device
maintenance reporting requirements. The agreement shall also specify routine inspection
requirements, permits and payment of fees. The agreement shall be recorded, and a copy
of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks
and Public Works Department, prior to the release of any occupancy permits.
Page 20 of23
90. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of contractor
and homeowner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned
up on a daily basis . Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT
washed into the Town's storm drains.
91. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times
during the course of construction . All construction shall be diligently supervised by a
person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The storing of
goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an
encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division . The adjacent public right-of-
way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and
debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and
materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment
permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during
all working hours . Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition
may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense.
92 . UTILITY COMPANY REVIEW: Letters from the electric, telephone, cable, and trash
companies indicating that the proposed improvements and easements are acceptable shall
be provided prior to recordation of the final map.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
93. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM. Approved automatic fire sprinklers are
required for all new residences. A State of California licensed (C-16) fire protection
contractor shall submit plans, calculations a completed permit application and appropriate
fees to the Fire Department for review and approval , prior to beginning work.
94. POT ABLE WATER SUPPLIES. Potable water supplies shall be protected from
contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. The applicant shall contact the
providing water purveyor and shall comply with all requirements of that purveyor. The
fire sprinkler system shall be designed in compliance with water purveyor requirements ;
final approval of the system will not be granted by the Fire Department until written
confinnation is received from the water purveyor.
95 . PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED. Provide public fire hydrant(s) at location(s)
Page 21 of23
to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company.
Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 600 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of
1 ,500 GPM at 20 psi , residual. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire
apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets .
96. FIRE LANE MARKING. Fire apparatus roads , driveways and access ways shall not be
marked as fire lanes without first obtaining Fire Department approval. Fire lane s shall be
identified by red curb marking, signage or roadway surface marking.
97. TIMING OF WATER SUPPLY INSTALLATIONS. Installations ofrequired fire
services and fire hydrant(s) shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department prior to
the start of framing or delivery of combustible materials, except when approved alternate
methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each
street intersection when construction of roadways allows p as sage by vehicles .
98 . PREMISE IDENTIFICATION. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all
new and buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or
road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background.
Page 22 of23
SECTION VI
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos on ---, 2016 , and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town
of Los Gatos at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on ____ , 201 6
and becomes effective 30 days after it is adopted.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS , CALIFORNIA
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
N:\DEV\ORDS\20 16\LGB 162 12 .docx
Page 23 of23
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Application No. PD-14-001 A.P.N. # 523-06-010 and 011
N
Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance.
~ Zone Change From: CH To: CH:PD
Prezonin
Forwarded by Planning Commission
Approved by Town Council Date:
Date: February 24, 2016
Ord:
Clerk Administrator Mayor EXHIBIT A of Exhibit 10
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank