18 Addendum - 14300 Winchester BlvdMEETING DATE: 1/20/04
ITEM NO.
ADDENDUM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
toss~tog
DATE: January 16, 2004
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN CO
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER A REQUEST TO MODIFY AN APPROVED PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT RELATING TO THE ALLOWED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF
OFFICE SPACE AND NUMBER OF APARTMENT UNITS ON PROPERTY
ZONED CM:PD. APN 424-32-068. PROPERTY LOCATION: 14300
WINCHESTER BLVD. FILE #PD-03-1. PROPERTY OWNER\APPLICANT:
SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES.
DISCUSSION:
Attachment 21 is a letter of support that was received following completion of the staff report.
Attachment 22 is a letter that was sent to Council members by Planning Commissioner Jeanne
Drexel. Staff has reviewed Commissioner Drexel's letter and, at Council's request, has prepared
comments on the main points for the Council's information.
Comments on Commissioner Drexel's letter
The following staff comments follow the sequence of comments offered by Commissioner Drexel.
• While it is interesting that Sacramento has TOD (transit oriented development) design guidelines,
they have not been adopted by the Town. Staff referred the project to VTA since that agency has
guidelines for integrating land use and transportation. The Town adopted the VTA guidelines
with the intent of implementing them to the maximum extent feasible. VTA has indicated its
support for the project (see Attachment 8 to the staff report).
• The Police Department reviewed the plans for the modified project. `No short term or long term
security issues were identified, but several ideas were discussed with the applicant such as
installing a emergency call box on the trail and police communication antenna on the building.
PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ,
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
N:\DEV\SUZANNE\Coun iNteporv\Fwd. to TC\143(N)Win-PDA-edd.wpd
Reviewed by: QAssistant Town Manager Town Attorney Clerk Finance
Community Development Revised: 1/16/04 1:56 pm
Reformatted: 5/30/02
I
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 14300 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
January 16, 2004
Sobrato agreed to these. This project has incorporated high quality materials that will last many
years with limited maintenance.
The original environmental review process determined that there would be no significant impacts
to police services. While this development, on the boundary of the Town's service area, will
incrementally add to the population of the Town, the Police Department will work with the
developer and the security consultant to minimize impacts through environmental design and,
if necessary, the use of private on-site security to handle low level issues. Further, the applicant
has hired Ron Petroccui & Assoc.,Contract Services, a security expert recommended by the
Town to review the proposed plans. No significant security issues were identified, however,
some refinements were suggested that can be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit.
1. Too much underground and tandem parking.
The tandem parking is proportional to what was approved in the original project and to what
other communities have successfully included in TOD projects. Staff and the applicant carefully
looked at the parking ratios and found that they could eliminate some of,the underground
parking to address design issues raised by the Planning Commission. There is no evidence to
show that there will be insufficient parking. The project provides,parking at ratios considered
appropriate by the Urban Land Institute and-the Town's Consulting Traffic Engineer Fehr &
Peers.
2. The units are accessed through interior corridors.
The approved project has interior corridors. There are no Town restrictions or regulations
about discouraging interior corridors in multi family developments. Interior corridors are not
an uncommon design element of medium and high density apartment projects.
3. The units along the creek are not integrated into the rest of the development.
The townhouse units were included to provide an alternate housing type. A significant amount
of work went into creating mini-neighborhoods throughout the project to provide a human scale
and intimate open space areas where people can chose to live. From an urban design
perspective, planners and architects try to give people living environment choices because some
people like to live next to an amenity like a community pool, others near the playground, while
others want to live near a more passive open space area well away from the noise of the pool
and playground. It is true that the townhouses 'are .separated from the rest of the project by a
perimeter road, but the slope of the property forced this design feature as a way to step the
project with.the site to minimize the use of retaining walls and provide adequate circulation. 'The
site is both pedestrian and bicycle friendly, however, stairs are needed in certain strategic
locations to address the slope of the site. Again, the Police Chief did not see a security issue
from a macro level and the applicant has hired a security expert to assist the Police Department
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 14300 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
January 16, 2004
in the review of the security issues. The applicant has hired a consultant that was recommended
by the Police Chief.
4. The property along the creek is not being used for communal recreation.
The design and orientation of the buildings along the creek is similar to what was approved
in the original project. The existing heavy vegetation along the creek and between the trail and
the project totally screen the project from the creek and the trail. That vegetation is not on the
Sobrato property and cannot be removed because it provides riparian habitat. Consequently,
reorienting the project to face the creek would not offer any specific benefit other than to.afford
views of the dense vegetation. Visual corridors were incorporated into the design of the project
to provide views of the riparian vegetation. In addition, the project was designed to afford ample
access the trail and the creek.
5. The site plan needs to be reviewed by a professional to see if security can be improved and
address the "canyon" effect created by buildings in certain locations.
The Police Department has reviewed the plans and has stated that security is not a concern.
What is termed a canyon can also be considered a transition area between the intimate open
space areas. The corners of the buildings in these locations have been clipped to reduce the
height and units were strategically eliminated to reduce the mass and scale in these locations.
6. The pedestrian system should provide clear, comfortable and direct pedestrian access to the core
commercial area and transit stop. The primary pedestrian paths should be oriented between the
creek and Winchester.
The applicant provided a plan that shows how the project is pedestrian friendly both within the
project and in terms of how it connects to the future light rail and to A Street to access the
Vasona Station Center on the northwest corner of Winchester & Knowles.
7. More places of activity need to be placed among the apartment units.
The applicant has proposed a variety of outdoor spaces and indoor common areas for residents.
In addition, the Los Gatos Creek Trail affords the residents and office employees a premier
recreation amenity. Perhaps more community barbecue areas could be incorporated but they
may not be well used. One large area is provided for large parties or neighborhood events and
the apartments have balconies or patios that may be used for barbeques.
8. The actual density is 36 units/acre and the project is more of a neighborhood TOD.
As noted previously, the Sacramento standards have not been adopted by the Town. The density
of the modified project is lower than the approved project. The applicant has asked that the
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 14300 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
January 16, 2004
density not be arbitrarily reduced unless there is a compelling reason to do so and without an
opportunity to address the issue through creative design solutions. From VTA's perspective, the
project is already at the low end of the ridership range to support extension of light rail to Los
Gatos.
Commissioner Drexel made the following suggestions for inclusion in the project (staff comments
follow each item):
1. No phasing
The Town has allowed phased projects as part of the master planning process and Planned
Development process. Los Gatos Community Hospital is going to the Planning Commission
shortly with their master plan which may be phased over many years. Staff is more concerned
about what happens with the area that would be delayed as a later phase. This concern has been
discussed with the applicant and they understand and agree that the area should be well
maintained with perhaps wildflowers, interim minimal landscaping and some other attractive
low maintenance improvements.
2. BMP units should rotate through the project. More BMP units should be required.
The applicant proposed the concept of rotating the BMP units through the apartment complex.
The BMP units will be the same size as market rate units to allow this to occur. While the
applicant is only providing the number of BMP units required by code, they have offered to
increase the number of BMP units by making some of the units at Riviera Terrace affordable to
increase the ratio of affordable units. Riviera Terrace may be more dated housing but the
location is closer to downtown which is a plus, and is consistent with the Town's policy of
scattering the units throughout the Town. In addition, the Riviera Terrace units have been
refurbished since Sobrato purchased the property. The applicant will address this at the
meeting.
3. Bike racks shall be installed by the applicant.
Bike racks will be installed. This has always been a component of the plan. VTA guidelines will
be used to determine the minimum number of bike racks.
4. The shuttle between the project and Campbell light rail must run with the land.
A cc -mmunity benefit agreement is required by condition of approval. The agreement will include
details of the operation of the shuttle including timing and longevity of the system.
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL.
SUBJECT: 14300 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
January 16, 2004
5. The tot lot shall be located in a secure area that is easily accessible.
The plan ensures that anyone with a child can access the tot lot and if preferred, will be able to
live adjacent to it. The stairs can be avoided by using an elevator or pathway but the pathway
may be a little longer route to the tot lot.
6. Buildings along the creek shall be eliminated so the area can be used for recreational purposes.
See response to item 4 under the first set of comments.
7. Access to the creek with more direct access to the transit hub shall be incorporated into the final
design.
The pedestrian circulation plan was carefully developed to afford ample circulation. The
applicant can provide a more detailed description of the circulation at the Council meeting.
8. Eliminate interior corridors.
Eliminating interior corridors is a much different project than the one proposed by the applicant.
If the Town wants to prohibit interior corridors a new policy or ordinance should be adopted.
9. The site plan should be reviewed by a. security expert.
This has been discussed previously and is a condition of approval.
10. Integrate places for activities into the site so they are accessible to residents.
A variety of activity areas are included in the plan and these areas are all accessible. The
applicant will discuss this further at the meeting.
11. Consult the Town's Consulting Architect about these changes and possibly require a TOD
specialist to review the plan.
Changes can be reviewed by anyone the Council desires, but staff and the Consulting Architect
traditionally address these issues.
12. Refer the revised plans back to the Planning Commission for final approval.
Council may refer this project back to the Planning Commission or it may approve the project
with direction to address specific issues at the Planning Commission or DRC level. The Council
may also deny the modified Planned. Development. _
>t
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 14300 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
January 16, 2004
The applicant's desire not to revisit the project at the Planning Commission level is discussed
in applicant's letter, Attachment 9 to the staff report.
Attachments:
1-20. Previously sent under separate cover
21. Letter from Stephen McNulty (one page), received January 14, 2004
22. Letter from Jeanne Drexel (four pages), received January 14, 2004
23. E-mail from Michele Jehenson (one page), received January 14, 2003
24. Letters received in support of the project (3 pages), received January 16, 2004
Distribution:
John Shenk, Sobrato Development, 10600 N. De Anza Blvd., Suite 200, Cupertino, CA 95014
Eric Morley, Morley Hunter Group, 99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 720, San Jose, CA 95113
BNL: SD:mdc
N:\DEVXSUZANNBCounciAAeports\Fwd. to TCt143(X)Win-PDA-add.wpd
Stephan McNulty
4727 Hacienda Ave.
Campbell, CA 95008
Home(408)376-3863
Work(408)918-2706
stephanmcnulty@hotmail.com
Mayor Steve Glickman 1
Los Gatos City Council D Town Hall RECEIVED
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030 JAN 1 4 2004
January 13, 2004 MAYOR&TOWN CpuNOH
Dear Mayor Glickman and City Council,
Many Los Gatos residents have looked at the Sobrato project on
Winchester at Highway 85 and concluded that over on the west side of
the freeway, they get all the benefits while Campbell gets all the
impacts. Actually, there are some of us in Campbell who also get the
benefits.
Our home on Hacienda Avenue is near the proposed site. I work for Santa
Clara County in San Jose. If I could get on light rail transit at
Vasona Station, it would be ideal for getting to work. I know some of
my neighbors also look forward to both the proposed shuttle bus and a
new transit station there.
Regional transportation officials welcomed the approved plan for the
site as an acceptable transit-oriented development. The amended plan is
considered by the Regional transportation officials as supportive of
transit.
Los Gatos Gateway will be good for transit, for the people who live
there, for the neighborhood and for the town. Please give your
approval.
Sincerely,
Stephan McNulty
Attachment 21
Bud Lortz - Bud.doao Pa e 2
SOBRATO
Comment:
This is supposed to be a Transit Oriented Development, or TOD.
As a TOD, it should foster community, it should be pedestrian oriented,
and reinforce the use of public transportation. It mast also meet the
requirements of our general plan. Please refer to "Transit-Oriented
Development Design Guidelines" prepared by Calthorpe and Associates
in Sept. 1990 for the Sacramento County Planning and Community
Development Department. These guys are the gurus of this kind of
project and the applicant claims to have followed these guidelines,
which are the bible on the subject.
I have always preferred that high density housing be built on this
site. It is the only site in Los Gatos suitable for high density housing
because of its orientation to 83 and access to 17 down Winchester. Also,
the school district is Campbell, and Campbell has said it is an
underatilized district and would like the additional students this project
might generate. Though the site is an island in industrial uses, its
proximity to the creek can provide a reason for housing here. The
possibility of some day having a light rail station here also makes it a
good site for high density housing. I support the idea of transforming
office space from the original project into housing.
However, as proposed, overtime, this proposal may create more
problems for the town than solutions. Sure, on opening day the
architecture will look beautiful. But I am worried about the project
when it is no longer so shiny. I am worried about it becoming a drain
on our police department. I am worried that it will become blighted
over time. Because its design is not conducive to community, the
population here will be very transitory. It may look good on opening
day, but it won't be fun to live here for very long. The reason is simple.
The site plan is terrible.
I. Poor parking (too much tsndem and not enough underground; each
modification by the applicant reduced more of the underground
parking). Fiore parldog needs to be placed under the podium. If that
allows surface parking to be reduced, so much the better.
Attachment 22
i Bud Lortz - Bud.dorr Page 31
2. The units are accessed through interior corridors, with the attendant
noise, smells, and maintenance headaches.
3. The units along the creek are not integrated into the rest of the
development. (They mill be 8 feet below the podium). Calthorpe
suideline 9A says that pedestrian and bicycle routes through parking
lots or at the rear of residential developments should be avoided.
Primary pedestrian routes and bikeways should be bordered by
residential fronts (rather than back yards), public parks, plazas or
commercial uses. Walking from these creek side units up a flight of
stairs open to a parking garage or along the backs of apartments to
reach the activity areas and/or Winchester presents security issues as
well as logistic disincentives.
4. The property along the creek, which is what makes this site in a
largely industrial setting attractive for housing, is not available for the
communal recreation of the residents because it has been used as a
building site. This is a violation of guideline 12E by Calthorpe. He says
that on-site creeks should be incorporated into the design of the TOD as
open space amenities.
5. Canyons are created by the close proximity of one block of
construction to another at some points. The site plan needs to be
reviewed by a professional to see if security can be enhanced by better
locating the units and pedestrian paths.
6. Calthorpe Guideline 9B states that the pedestrian system should
provide clear, comfortable, and direct pedestrian access to the core
commercial area and the transit stop. The North-South orientation of
pedestrian paths and meandering nature in this site plan does not meet
this criteria. The primary pedestrian paths should be oriented
primarily between the creek and Winchester.
7. More places for activities need to be strategically placed among the
units- No one is going to BBQ at a site on the opposite side of the
development from their unit. The same with play grounds. They need
to be located in secure areas close to units at more than one location.
S. Actual densities on the residential part of the site are about 36 units
per acre, depending upon who gets credit for the parking between the
office and the residents. This project is more of a neighborhood TOD,
though it might develop into an urban TOD. In Guideline 5A of
Calthorpe's guidelines, densities for urban TODs are recommended at
a minimum of 15 units per gross residential acre, maximum 50 and for a
neighborhood TOD the average of 12 units per residential gross acre
with a maximum of 30 units per gross residential acre is recommended.
Bind t ortz - Bud.dd Pa e 4
The density of this project can be reduced in order to eliminate the site
problems and still achieve the twin goals of providing high density
housing and a transportation oriented, development.
Theses are the things I believe we need to do to make this a good
project.
1. No phasing. Projects are approved for a certain time in which
they are, usually, appropriate. If times change so should the
project. An example of this problem is the current approved
project which the applicant uses to threaten the town. He says if
he can't build the amended project as proposed, he will build the
approved project: Let him. Do you want to approve what will
become in 10 years or so the first Los Gatos slum? The first
project is lousy but at least is unlikely to create law enforcement
and security issues for people.
2. BMP units must rotate throughout the project and not be any
particular units. Also, if the density is reduced, the same number
of BMP units should be provided as the applicant proposes with
the current project. The applicant eliminated much of the
community benefit of this project by providing only the number
of BMP units required by the town, rather than an excess, as
before. Require him to provide a greater community benefit.
Make him provide more BMP units at this location. He said he
would provide a 20% bonus if the BMP anits were at another
location in town. That location is an old apartment house (Maybe
50 years old?) It is not a very desirable place to live compared to
this site with the changes proposed. Give lower income people the
best place to live that we can, not a deteriorated, dated building.
3. Bicycle racks SHALL be provided by the applicant. Not should.
4. The community benefit must be sure to include the bus between
the project and the Campbell light rail and the obligation to
provide the transportation must run with the land.
5. A tot lot shall be located in a secure area so that it is easily
accessible to residences. No stairs to scale or elevators with a
stroller, please.
6. Buildings running along the creek shall be eliminated and the
area shall become open space integrated into the entire project as
b Bud Lggz - Bud.do4 Page 51
recommended by the Calthorpe guidelines suggested by the
applicant,
7. Access to the creek, and more direct access to, the transit hubs
from the apartments shall be incorporated into the final design
and lay out of the buildings as recommended by the guidelines.
S. Eliminate interior corridors.
9. The site plan should be reviewed by an expert in security planning
to assure that the design will not create conditions which will
enhance the opportunity for criminal behavior.or detract from
pedestrian or residents' security.
1 Untegrate places for activities into the site so they are accessible to
residents.
11.Consalt the town architect about these changes and if he feeb it
necessary, rewire a TOD specialist to review the site plan at the
applicant's expense.
12. After requiring the applicant to comply with at least these
directions so that project is a long term benefit to the town, then
give the planning commission final approval as to whether these
directions have been met before the town council approves the
PD.
Page 1 of 1
Bud Lortz - town council
From: <Europe4U@aol.c0m>
To: <MWasserman@aol.com>
Date: 1/14/2004 9:01 AM
Subject: town council
Dear Mike,
Forgive me for writing to you but I only know your e-mail. You can pass this on to the other council members.
I will be out of town for the next council meeting. I would like to get.my voice heard still. Of course it is about the
SObrato issue coming up. My point is really simple. It can be summed up in one word : FORESIGHT
. It seems that many people including John Sobrato himself believes that it is not up to the developpers to give
land back to the community ( I think land is more appropriate than soccer field because the concept of land is
what is important, later the city can decide what it needs to do with the land). It also seems that the same people
are unaware of what is being done in other communities. I can quote Benicia, Palo Alto ( just recently ) and Mill
Valley ( the latter has a beautiful huge community center with soccer fields, dog park, indoor pool... right_on the
water. Talk about prime real estate property and multi million dollar in potential development . a far cry from the
side of Hway 85). Somewhere along the line, developpers had to give up some land for public use or they woudl
not have had the privillege to inconvenience the city and its inhabitants . CUpertino has a zillion parks ( of the top
of my head, I can name 5 but there might be more). These Cupertino parks are not state or county parks. THey
are all within planned developments. All land set aside by the developper either willingly or as part of a
settlement. Cupertino and these other communities have the foresight that Los Gatos has been lacking. Of
course, Sobrato, who hads been given the green light on a prior project, will probably pass on the opportunity to
be a local hero and will go ahead and build the initial project..
I worry about the next large piece of property and the last one of its kind in Los Gatos: the NOrth 40. It seems
that despite spending a huge amount of money and hiring a consultant to draw a plan for the entire lot ; bits and
pieces are being developped as we speak and there does nto seem to be a "plan for the entire area" . This is
another opportunity for the city to get land in exchange for the privillege to make a huge profit. If the lot is zoned
agricultural, a zoning change is a privilege at the expense of the community and the developper should pay a
premium to the city as well as to the land owner.
Thank you for listening to my broken record.
Michele Jehenson
Attachment 23
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\User\Local%20Settings\TEMP\GW}00003.HTM 1/15/2004
Page 1 of 1
Marilyn Cosden - Los Gatos Gateway
From: Dennis Chambers <dennis@cps-co.com> R EC r_ / ~ M~
To: <planning@town.los-gatos.ca.us> JAN 16 '0q
Date: 1/15/2004 11:52 PM
Subject: Los Gatos Gateway TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLAN NG DEPARTMENT
> Mayor Steve Glickman
> Town Council Members
> Los Gatos Town Council
> City of Los Gatos
> 110 E. Main St.
> Los Gatos, Ca 95030
> January 15, 2004
> Dear Mayor Glickman and City Council,
>
> We concur with Sobrato Development in its assessment that the
> commercial-residential mix at the proposed Los Gatos Gateway project should
> be changed to increase housing units and decrease office space. While a Los
> Gatos location has special appeal, the availability of some 60 million
> square feet of empty office space will impact even the most prestigious
> address.
> The change in mix also helps the town meet its housing obligations without
> impacting our low-density character, promotes the Vasona transit extension
> and still retains the significantly improved appearance along Winchester.
> Please approve the proposed PD amendment. Its good for the residents and
employees who will live and work there, and it's good to get rid of the weed
patch and increase the tax revenue for the city.
> Sincerely,
> Dennis Chambers
469 Wraight Ave
Los Gatos, Calif. 95032
Dennis Chambers
dennis@cps-co.com
http:www.cis-co.com
Attachment 24
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\MCosden\Local %20Settings\Temp\GW } 00001.... 1/16/2004
January 16, 2004
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
CHAMBER Of COMMERCE
SPEAKING FUR BUSINESS.
LISTENING TO THE COMMUNITY
The Honorable Steve Glickman, Mayor
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mayor Glickman:
e6f A0 ,
0 L E
JAN 6
_OFFiCE OF TOWN CLERK
JAN 1 6 2003
'n<<r v
We want to express our support for the Sobrato Company's Los Gatos Gateway
development on behalf of the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. The
revised land use mix of office/R&D and housing conforms to the Los Gatos General Plan
and improves the Planned Development already approved by the Town.
The Sobrato Company's modification to the approved Planned Development is a positive
response to the specific community concerns raised with the initial project. The revised
plan scales down the office space and increases housing units without compromising
architectural or site design quality. We believe that providing 49 affordable housing units
is a substantial community benefit. While more sports fields are important, affordable
housing is an even greater community need, in our opinion.
We believe that Los Gatos is fortunate that a local company with a strong track record of
success is proposing to develop this strategic gateway parcel. The Sobrato Company has
a reputation for quality development, for high standards of property management and for
attracting the kind of technology tenants that are the mainstay of Silicon Valley.
On the matter of including retail in the project, the existing Vasona Station Shopping
Center should be the focus of retail businesses serving that area of Town.
The Chamber of Commerce's support for this revised proposal is consistent with our
position on the original project in 2002. The Town Council's approval of the modified
Planned Development is especially important to provide for new jobs, both affordable
and market housing, and new tax base for Los Gatos. We urge the Town Council to
approve the modified Planned Development for Los Gatos Gateway.
Sincerely,
J
Phil Joh resident im Derryberry, Vice President for Legislative Affairs
408-354-9300 • Fax 399-1594 • chamber®losgatosweb.com . www.losgatosweb.com
Information & Executive Office: 349 North Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, Ca. 95030
JAN 6 ~nn.4
janutuy 16, 2004 TOWN OF LOS G OS
nrr,nr „r tn~.~.. -
Mayor Steve Glickman
Vice Mayor Mike Wasserman
Council Member Sandy Decker
Council Member Diane McNutt
Council Member Joe Pia nski
c/o Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Los Gatos Gateway Development
Dear Mayor Glickman and Members of the Town CounCil•
I wish to encourage your support for the revised Los Gatos Gateway prefect,
which will come before you on January 20'.
The revised project is even betteer for Los Gatos, as it will provide more housing
for our teache=s, nurses, technical work=s and others who are idial to our community and
who are already contributing to it. There is a housing crisis for people in the Ray Area
who axe living on modest incomes, and this high quality developme Twill help meet this
real need.
As a -~2- -year resident of Los Gatos, and as the former CEO of a large technical
services company located off '%'inche:ter Bolulevard near the proposed Los Gatos
Gateway site (Quadrex Corporation), I am very familiar with our towzt and its re ds. I
attended the Council hearing last year where the earlier Sobrato development proposal
was considered, and was very impressed with this creative proposal to combine
residcntial with Gffice/R&D in a location adjacent to the future light rail L+ne. It is clear
that the Sobrato development will be of the highest quality in terms of design, materials
and amenities.
Finally, the fact that the development will provide 49 units of long-tcrin
affordable housing, at no cost to our town :finances, is extremely irrporzznt. Los Gatos
should be d=rilled to be the beneaciar r of this substantial cotnmuni.y benefit.
I am con-2dent that tl•ds project will 5t beautifully within a,a: community, and
hope that you will give it your full support.
Sincerely, 1
Zd Wd9R:ZT 1700Z 9T 'upr SS699S280b - -
'ON Xtid >iDdWAdN WO~~