18 Staff Report - 14300 Winchester Blvda~
pow N of
I (jy;MG
I !OS•GAS~S
DATE
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
January 13, 2004
MEETING DATE: 1/20/04
ITEM NO. I
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGE
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
WINCHESTERBLVD. FILE 4PD-03-1. PROPERTY OWNER\APPLICANT:
SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Hold the public hearing and receive public testimony;
2. Close the public hearing;
3. Make the required findings (Attachment 1) and approve subject to the conditions included
in the PD Ordinance (Attachment 2);
4. Direct the Clerk to read the title;
5. Move to waive the reading;
6. Introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 2) to effectuate Planned Development Application
PD-03-1.
BACKGROUND
On February 4, 2002, the Town Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and
approved a Planned Development for 288,000 square feet of office/R&D and 134 apartments on the
subject property. A subsequent Architecture and Site (A&S) application was filed in April, 2002.
(Continued on Page 2)
PREPARED BY: Bud N. Loriz, Director of Community Development
.DEV',SUZANNE\Council,Reports\Fwd. to 70,14300Win-PDA.wpd
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Clerk Finance
Community Development Revised: 1/13/04 12:38 pm
Reformatted: 5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
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; FILE #PD-03-1.
January 13, 2004
The Planning Commission held study sessions on the A&S application on May 22 and June 26,
2000. Following the June 26, 2002 study session a public hearing was held, and the application was
continued to August 14, 2002. The Commission approved the Architecture and Site application on
August 14, 2002. Since that time the applicant reevaluated the plans and decided to submit a
proposal to modify the approved Planned Development to change the mix of uses (see project
summary below).
On August 6, 2003, the Town Council held a study session to discuss the Planned Development
modification. The purpose of the study session was for staff and the applicant to receive direction
from the Council on key issues. The direction provided by the Council was also intended to assist
the Planning Commission in its review of the modified PD. The Council was generally favorable
of the proposed shift in land use and provided consensus motions on other discussion items,
including timing, the review process, affordable housing and visual aids (refer to Exhibit L to the
October 22, 2003 Planning Commission report).
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant is proposing to modify the approved Planned Development (288,000 square feet of
office/R&D and 134 apartments) to change the mix of land uses to allow 120,000 square feet of
office/R&D and 290 apartments. The approved project includes 34 Below Market Price (BMP) units
and the revised project includes 48 BMP units. The applicant is proposing to maintain the approved
architectural design and quality for both the office and residential components of the project.
Consequently, no architectural modifications are proposed as part of this modified PD application.
The concept of reviewing the modified PD with more detailed architectural plans that is typically
provided with a PD application was discussed at the August 6, 2003 Council Study Session. The
Council indicated support for this approach of reviewing the architecture and site application at the
DRC level with assistance from the Town's Consulting Architect. The Council consensus was based
on the provision of enough architectural detail, the retention of the architectural excellence of the
approved project and not having too many loose ends. The architectural style for the modified PD,
including exterior materials, has not changed. If the modified PD is approved the architecture and
site process is anticipated to be a relatively minor review.
Soccer/Athletic Fields
A number of residents, soccer coaches, parents and players attended the three Planning Commission
hearings to testify about the need for soccer and other sports facilities. The applicant has pledged
to work with the interested parties to help find locations for soccer and/or to obtain new facilities.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
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; FILE #PD-03-1.
January 13, 2004
Community Benefit
The applicant is offering a substantial community benefit package with the revised project, to include
the following:
• Express shuttle link between the Campbell light rail station and the project site until the
Vasona extension is completed.
• Contribution to the Town for traffic/circulation improvements; the intersection of Knowles
Drive & Winchester Blvd. is a possible project ($50,000)
• Transit for Livable Communities Fund support/technical assistance
• Los Gatos Creek Trail improvements ($20,000)
• Gateway art feature ($100,000)
• Increase in affordable housing units (49 with the revised project as compared to 34 with the
approved project)
The applicants' letter (Exhibit A to the October 22, 2003 Commission report) includes additional
details on the community benefit offerings. A condition of approval requires an agreement to be
developed and approved by the Town memorializing the community benefits and clarifying how they
will be implemented. The applicant is open to shifting funds to areas that may be of higher priority
to the Town.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
On October 22, 2003, the Planning Commission considered plans to modify the approved Planned
Development to change the mix of land uses. The Commission received public testimony and
discussed the modified project. Each Commissioner provided numerous comments for the
applicant's consideration, and the item was continued to November 18, 2003.
The applicant presented revised plans to the Commission on November 18, 2003. After receiving
public testimony and discussion, the Commission continued the item to December 10, 2003 and
provided the following direction to the applicant:
1. Remove third story housing elements
2. Consider reducing the square footage of the office/R&D buildings
3. Create open space and recreational areas
4. Redefine community benefit (consider the need for recreational/sport facilities and possibly
change the community benefit package)
5. Open a view corridor though to the creek area
6. Open the site up more; provide more open/green space
s
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
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; FILE #PD-03-1.
January 13, 2004
7. There shall be no phasing of the project (the applicant is proposing to build the residential
portion of the project first followed by the two office buildings at later dates).
8. Consider relocating the tot lot to;a more secure area, and possibly add a second play area
9. Consider eliminating the loop road
10. Provide a public easement over the alternate trail (if the trail connection on SCVWD land
is not part of the project).
On December 10, 2003 the applicant made a presentation on plan changes that were feasible and
requested that the Planning Commission formulate a recommendation to the Town Council. The
Commission voted 4-1 (two Commissioners were absent) 'to forward a recommendation to the
Council that the revised plan not be approved and that an extension on the approved architecture and
site application be granted to allow additional time to work on plan issues and concerns. The
Commission expressed concern about the quality of life in the residential portion of the project, the
architecture, and the parking. The Commission would like to see more green space in the project
and suggested that a small retail component be included. Attachment 3 is the meeting minutes from
this final Commission meeting. Minutes from the two prior Commission meetings were forwarded
to the Council under separate cover.
The applicant has submitted a letter summarizing the process to date and stating their position on
the pending application (see Attachment 9). The applicant prefers not to return to the Planning
Commission to revise the plans as recommended by the Commission.
Time Extension
The Architecture & Site (A&S) approval for the approved project will expire on August 14, 2004
unless it is vested. To vest the approval a building permit must be issued and substantial work done.
Typically substantial work is defined as having the foundation(s) in. The Council approved the
Planned Development, but the subsequent A&S application was reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission. As the Commission was the body that granted the original approval, it may
approve a reasonable extension of time, not to exceed one year, if requested by the applicant. In
order to grant an extension of time the deciding body (Commission) must make the following
findings:
There would be no legal impediment to granting a new application for the same approval.
The conditions originally applied or new conditions to be applied as part of the extension
approval are adopted to any new facts concerning the proposed project.
A#
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
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; FILE #PD-03-1.
January 13, 2004
The applicant has indicated that a time extension is not desired due to the carrying costs associated
with the property. The applicant would like to move forward with construction of the approved
project if the PD modification is not approved.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
An Environmental Impact Report (E1R) was prepared and certified by the Town on February 4, 2002,
as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Addendum to the EIR was
prepared for the modified project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The.
Addendum includes details of the revised traffic analysis that was prepared for the revised project.
The conclusions of the traffic report are that the revised project will generate fewer vehicle trips than
the approved project (estimated at 395 fewer net new daily trips) and will have a less than significant
impact on intersections in Los Gatos and Campbell, including five Congestion Management Program
(CMP) intersections. A condition is included in the Planned Development Ordinance requiring the
applicant to pay a traffic impact mitigation fee as required by the Town's Traffic Policy.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Attachments:
1. Required Findings (two pages)
2. Revised Planned Development Ordinance (31 pages)
3. Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 2003 (17 pages)
4. Letter from Philip Dinapoli (one page), received January 13, 2004
5. Letter from Charles J. Toeniskoetter (one page), January 14, 2004
6. Letter from Edgar M. Thrift & Gail Ross Thrift (one page), received January 14, 2004
7. Letter from Victor Aboukhater (one page), received January 14, 2004
8. Letter from Santa Clara County VTA (one page), received January 14, 2004
9. Applicant's letter (six pages plus exhibits and attachments), received January 14, 2004
10. October 22, 2003 Planning Commission report with Exhibits A-N (sent under separate
cover)
11. October 22, 2003 Planning Commission report addendum with Exhibits O-Y (sent under
separate cover)
12. October 22, 2003 Planning Commission desk item with Exhibits Z-GG (sent under separate
cover)
13. October 22, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes (sent under separate cover)
14. November 18, 2003 Planning Commission report with Exhibits HH-PP (sent under separate
cover)
s
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
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; FILE #PD-03-1.
January 13, 2004
15. November 18, 2003 Planning Commission desk item with Exhibit QQ (sent under separate
cover)
16. November 18, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes (sent under separate cover)
17. December 10, 2003 Planning Commission report with Exhibits RR-TT (sent under separate
cover)
18. December 10, 2003 Planning Commission desk item with Exhibits UU-YY (sent under
separate cover)
19. Statement submitted by Planning Commission Chair Paul Dubois (one page), received
December 10, 2003 (sent under separate cover)
20. Development plans (32 sheets), received December 4, 2003 (sent under separate cover)
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
N:`,DEV\SUZAMIE\Council\Reports\Fwd. to T014300Win-PDA.wpd
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
14300 Winchester Boulevard
Planned Development Application PD-03-1
Requesting approval to modify a 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 OWNER\APPLICANT: Sobrato Development Companies
FINDINGS °
Required consistency with the Town's General Plan:
• That the proposed Zone Change is internally consistent with the General Plan and its
Elements.
Nr `,D E V\FINDMG$\ 14300-1 »350 Win-FDA. wpd
i
Attachment 1
i ,
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT
14300-14350 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD (ORDINANCE 2095)
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
Ordinance 2095 for the Planned Development at 14300 & 14350 Winchester Boulevard as
shown on the map attached as Exhibit A is hereby amended as follows.
SECTION H
The amended PD (Planned Development Overlay) zone established by this Ordinance
authorizes the following construction and use of improvements:
1. Construction of a research and development/office complex up to 120,000 square feet
and 290 residential apartments including 242 market rate and 48 Below Market Price
(BMP) units.
2. Landscaping, parking, and other site improvements shown and required on the
Official Development Plan (Exhibit B);
3. Uses permitted are residential and those uses specified in the underlying CM
i
(Controlled Manufacturing) zone by Sections 29.70.220 (Permitted Uses) and
29.20.185 (Table of 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 subject to any restrictions or other requirements specified elsewhere in this
ordinance including, but not limited to, the Official Development Plan. However,
1
Attachment 2
I
b
no use listed in Section 29.20.185 is allowed unless specifically authorized by this
Ordinance.
4. The R & D/office complex is limited to a maximum of four tenants.
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 any construction work for the project 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 issued in a manner complying with Section 29.80.130
of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION V
The attached Exhibit A (Map) and Exhibit B (development plans received by the Town of
Los Gatos on December 4, 2003, 32 sheets), incorporated herein by this reference, are part of the
Official Development Plan. The following must be complied with before issuance of any grading,
demolition or construction permits, unless otherwise stated:
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL REQUIRED. A separate Architecture and Site
Application and approval shall be required for the research and development/office
buildings, apartment buildings, parking areas and landscape improvements. This application
2
may be approved by the Town's Development Review Committee with review by the
Consulting Architect.
2. OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The Official Development Plans provided is
conceptual in nature. Final footprints and building designs shall be determined during the
architecture and site approval process.
3. BUILDING SIZES. The size of the R & D/office complex shall be up to 120,000 square
feet, inclusive of any conference facilities, cafeteria, fitness center or other amenities. The
size and composition of the apartment buildings shall be refined as part of the architecture
and site approval process. The maximum number of apartments is 290. The final size of the
office buildings may be increased or decreased provided that the total floor area does not
exceed 120,000 square feet.
4. BELOW MARKET PRICE PROGRAM. The developer shall designate 48 of the residential
units as BMP rental units. A deed restriction shall be recorded prior to issuance of building
permits stating that the BMP units must be rented as blow market price units pursuant to the
Town's BMP requirements. The.BMP units shall be low income (less than 80% of median
income).
5. COMMUNITY BENEFIT. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Town for
provision of the community benefits being offered with the project as listed in the letter from
the applicant dated May 14, 2003 (Exhibit A to the October 22, 2003 Report to the Planning
Commission). The agreement shall include details on the timing and implementation of each
item and shall be approved by the Town Attorney and * the Director of Community
Development prior to issuance of any building permits for the project.
3
6. LANDSCAPING. The planting along Los Gatos Creek shall be riparian ground covers,
understory and trees selected from the California Department of Fish & Game's Riparian
Vegetation List.
7. LANDSCAPE PLAN. The final landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist
as part of the Architecture & Site approval process. All Tree Protection measures
recommended by the Consulting Arborist shall be followed.
8. **CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE 4.8-,1. [fit is demonstrated that
there are intact deposits of significant archaeological, materials, a plan for the mitigation of
impacts to these resources shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval prior to
resumption of construction activities in the area of identified deposits. If cultural or
archaeological resources are uncovered during construction, all work must be halted within
a 50-foot radius of the find, the Community Development Director shall be notified, and a
qualified archaeologist must be retained to examine the find, determine its significance and
make appropriate recommendations. Project personnel shall not alter the materials or their
context or collect cultural resources. The cost ofthe Town retaining a qualified archaeologist
shall be paid for by the property owner/developer. If human remains are discovered, the Los
Gatos Police Department and Santa Clara County Coroner shall immediately be notified.
The Coroner would determine whether or not the remains were Native American. If the
Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority, the Coroner shall
notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who would attempt to identify
descendants of the deceased Native American.
4
3
9. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained prior to the issuance
of a Building, Grading or Encroachment Permit.
10. RECYCLING. All wood, metal, glass, and aluminum materials generated from the
demolished structure shall be deposited to a company that 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 Town's demolition inspection.
11. LIGHT RAIL EXTENSION. The developer shall participate and assist the Town in working
with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in extending the light rail line
from Campbell to the project site.
12. PARKING. The minimum parking ratios for the project are 3.1 spaces/1000 square feet for
the office buildings and 1.8 spaces/unit for the apartments. The area between the office and
residential uses is identified as shared parking. Parking spaces may be removed to
accommodate the future light rail station, a sidewalk along the property frontage or other
improvements deemed appropriate bythe Director of Community Development provided that
the number of spaces does not fall below the minimum levels. Any changes to the parking
.
layout shall be first approved by the Directors of Community Development and Parks &
Public Works. Wheel stops are not permitted and shall be deleted from the plans. Parking
spaces shall be double striped per Town standards.
13. RIPARIAN CORRIDOR. Riparian planting shall be on the creek side of the trail, and a
drinking fountain shall be included alongside the creek trail if permitted by the Santa Clara
Valley Water District.
14. NETWORK ACCESS. Network access shall be provided in the outdoor common area for
the office buildings, to allow people to work outside.
5
15. PROJECT SIGNS. A sign program shall be proposed by the applicant and approved by the
Director of Community Development prior to issuance of any building permits for the
project. Any signs to be placed on the site, including a monument sign, building signs for
both the office and residential components and directional signs shall be included.
16. PROJECT PHASING. The project may be phased as shown on the Phasing Plan submitted
to the Town. Time frames for phasing of project components shall be approved by Director
of Community Development prior to issuance of any building permits for the project. The
Phasing Plan shall included provisions for security and maintenance of the land designated
for the office buildings and parking.
17. ARCHITECTURAL- DETAILS. The applicant shall continue to work with Planning staff
and the Consulting Architect to refine the plans through the Architecture & Site review
process. The following items shall be included in the final architectural review:
• Refinement of the front entry towers on the office buildings.
• Redesign the exterior of one of the office buildings so they are not the same, but
remain compatible.
The applicant shall submit a final set of plans that includes all changes reflected in the
conditions of approval.
Building Division
18. "GEOLOGIC MITIGATION MEASURE 4.3-1: Prior to issuance of any building permits,
project plans shall demonstrate compliance with 1997 Uniform Building Code requirements
for structural and seismic loads and recommendations made by Lowney Associates, as
required by the Building Division.
6
19. "GEOLOGIC MITIGATION MEASURE 4.3-2: The undocumented fill on the site shall be
completely removed and replaced with engineered fill in order to minimize differential
settlement and possible damage to the buildings. In addition, sheet piles that were left in
place shall be cut and removed during excavation activities. .
20. "AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURE 4.6-1. Construction activities shall comply
with the "Basic Control Measures" and applicable "Optional Control Measures" for dust
emissions as outlined in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines.
21. PERMITS REQUIRED. A building permit application shall be required for each proposed
structure. Separate Electrical/Mechanicat/Plumbing permit shall be required as necessary.
22. CONSTRUCTION PLANS. The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover
sheet of the construction plan submitted for building permit.
23. SIZE OF PLANS. The maximum size of construction plans submitted for building permits
shall be 24 inches by 36 inches.
24. PLANS. The construction plans for this project shall be prepared under direct supervision
of a licensed architect or engineer (Business and Professionals Code Section 5538).
25. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS. Contact the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
at (415) 771-6000 and complete their process as necessary before obtaining a demolition
permit from the Town Building Department. As part of the permit application process a site
plan shall be provided that includes all existing structures and existing utility lines such as
water, sewer, and P.G.&E. No demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a
demolition permit from the Town.
26. SOILS REPORT. Two copies of a soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building
Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be
7
9
submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed
civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics.
27. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS. A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or
land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector upon foundation
inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified
in the soils report and the building pad elevation and on-site retaining wall locations and
elevations are 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. Pad elevation
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation corner locations
28. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE. California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CR-
IR and MF-IR shall be printed on the construction plans.
29. TITLE 24 ACCESSIBILITY COMMERCIAL-1. On-site parking facilities shall comply
with the latest California Title 24 Accessibility Standards. Accessibility parking shall be
provided for in both covered and uncovered parking areas.
30. TITLE 24 ACCESSIBILITY - COMMERCIAL-2. On-site general path of travel shall
comply with the latest California Title 24 Accessibility Standards. Work shall include, but
shall not be limited to, accessibility to building entrances from parking and sidewalks.
31. TITLE 24 ACCESSIBILITY - COMMERCIAL-3. The buildings shall comply with the
latest California Title 24 Accessibility Standards. Necessary'work shall be first investigated
by the design architect•then confirmed by Town staff.
8
32. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS. When a special inspection is required by UBC Section 1701, 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 any building permits, in accordance
with UBC Section 106.3.5. Please obtain Town Special Inspection form from the Building
Division Service Counter. The Town Special Inspection schedule shall be printed on the
construction plans.
33. NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS. The Town standard Santa Clara
Valley Non-point Source Pollution Control Program specification sheet shall be part of plan
submittal. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division service counter.
34. ADDITIONAL AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED. The project requires the following
agency approvals before issuance of a building permit:
a. West Valley Sanitation District 378-2407
b. Santa Clara County Fire Department: 378-4010
C. Campbell Union High School District: 371-0960
Note: Obtain the school district forms from the Town Building Department, after the
Building Department has approved the building plans.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORDS:
Engineering Division
35. "HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURE 4.4-3.
Note: the permit process and storm water management requirements have been updated
since the EIR was prepared.
A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared prior to start of
construction. The SWPPP and project plans shall be reviewed by the Town Engineering
- 9
i
e
staff, and any applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of
Order 01-024 shall be incorporated. The SWPPP shall be in conformance with the Santa
Clara County NPDES Permit as amended by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) on October 17, 2001: The SWPPP shall be approved concurrently
with the grading, drainage and erosion control plans.
36. **TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC RECOMMENDATIONS:
a. The Winchester Boulevard driveway shall be striped as an exclusive left-turn lane
plus a shared througlvright-turn lane. The northbound left-turn pocket at this
intersection shall be lengthened to provide adequate storage as part of the intersection
modification in coordination with the Town of Los Gatos and Caltrans.
b. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall be provided at the Winchester driveway and
along A Street to Knowles Drive. Safe railroad crossing points shall also be provided
at these intersections. Sidewalks to accommodate both pedestrians and bicycles shall
be provided between the Winchester Boulevard/northbound SR 85 on-ramp/site
driveway intersection and the project site on both sides of the driveway. In addition,
any street improvements along the Winchester Boulevard site frontage shall include
or accommodate planned bike lane improvements as specified in General Plan Policy
T.I.5.10. Feasibility of all off-site measures will need to be determined by the Town
since the applicant does not own the property where these improvements are
recommended to be located.
C. The VTA and Town shall determine feasibility of the applicant providing the
recommended bus stop on Winchester Boulevard, but maintenance responsibilities
will be either the VTA's or Town's.
10
d. Since fiber optic cable facilities are located within the Union Pacific Railroad
Company right-of-way, the applicant shall contact Union Pacific before project
construction to determine whether such facilities could be affected by the project.
e. The proposed four-foot wide pedestrian path along the southern project boundary
(connecting the creek trail and the future light rail station) should be widened to
provide a multi-use trail connection between the creek trail and Winchester
Boulevard/the future light rail station. This trail should be pedestrians and bicyclists.
37. "TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC RECOMMENDATIONS: The following provisions
or improvements shall be made:
a. Loading areas should be designed to ensure the intended trucks can be
accommodated.
b. Well-lighted pedestrian and bicycle paths between buildings, transit locations, and
bicycle parking should be provided.
C. Bicycle racks.should be provided for short-term visitor parking and bicycle lockers
should be provided for project employees in accordance with VTA Guidelines.
38. NOTICE OF INTENT. A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the San Francisco Bay
RWQCB. A copy of the NOI shall be provided to the Town Engineering Division.
39. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. The applicant shall supply suitable securities for
all public improvements that are a part of the development in a form acceptable to the Town
in the amount of 100% (performance) and 100% (labor and material) 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 and Public Works
Department. -
11
4
40. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The Applicant shall enter an agreement to construct
public improvements in accordance with Town Code §24.40.020.
41. GRADING PERMIT. A grading permit is required for site grading and drainage. The
grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division
of the Parks & Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans
shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location, driveway, utilities, structural
drawings for retaining walls, 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.
42. SCVWD APPROVAL. The following Santa Clara Valley Water District approvals shall be
obtained:
a. A letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District indicating they have reviewed and
approved the site retaining wall structural plan, grading plan, and public
improvement plan shall be provided prior to issuance of a either a grading or
encroachment permit.
b. Any work within 50-feet of the top of the Los Gatos Creek bank or within the vicinity
of SCVWD water transmission facilities will also require a District permit. Evidence
of such permits shall be provided to the Engineering Division of Parks and Public
Works prior to issuance of the grading and encroachment permit.
12
43. RETAINING WALLS. A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E. Main.
Street, is required for all site retaining walls. Site wall plans shall also be submitted to the
Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works as part of the grading permit submittal.
Engineering will review the plans for construction clearances to property lines.
44. SOILS REPORT. One copy of the soils report shall be submitted with the grading permit
or public improvement application, whichever is submitted first. 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.
45. SOILS REVIEW. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant's.soils engineer shall 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.
46. 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
13
applicants soils engineer and'submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy
permit is granted.
47. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR. The applicant shall fund a full time public works inspector
for the duration of the earthwork and public improvement operations. The applicant will be
charged on and time and materials basis. A deposit for the.full amount, to be estimated by
the Town based on the Contractor's approved schedule, shall be paid prior to issuance of the
grading and encroachment permits.
48. PARCEL MAP. A parcel map shall be recorded. Two copies of the parcel 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 appropriate fee.
The map shall be recorded before any permits are issued.
49. DEDICATIONS. The following shall be dedicated on the parcel map or by separate
instrument. The dedications shall be recorded before any permits are issued.
a. Winchester Driveway. An easement of width and type specified by the PUC shall be
granted by separate instrument.
b. Public Service Easement (PSE). All on-site roadways shall be within PSE's, as
required.
C. Ingress-egress, storm drainage and sanitary sewer easements, as required.
d. Emergency Vehicle Access Easements (EVAE). All on-site roadways shall be within
EVAE's, as required.
50. TRUCK ACCESS. Site design presented at Architectural and Site review shall accommodate
a WB-50 truck.
14
51. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The following improvements shall be installed by the
developer. Plans 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 improvements must be completed and accepted by
the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. Public
improvements shall include the following:
a. Winchester Boulevard/Highway 85 Intersection: Modify the intersection and the
signal of the main driveway with Winchester Boulevard. The Town and Cal Trans
shall approve the preliminary intersection and signal plans prior to start of final
design by the applicant. Intersection plans shall include improvements to the rail
road crossing.
V. Winchester Boulevard: Entrance drive, railroad crossing, two street lights, tie-in
paving, signing, striping, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, sidewalk on both sides
of entry drive, new bus stop to VTA standards, access ramps, right turn pocket, bike
lane, median modifications, as required.
C. A Street. Sidewalk between project and Knowles shall be provided. The developer
shall make a good faith attempt, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, to
obtain sidewalk rights from the adjacent property owner. In the event that such an
effort fails, the developer shall work with the Town to provide the walk within the
existing right of way. Details of provisions to be provided shall be addressed prior
to issuance of an encroachment permit.
15
0
52. ARBORIST REVIEW. The Town Consulting Arborist shall review and approve both the
grading and public improvement plan sets prior to issuance of a grading or encroachment
permit.
53. WINCHESTER SIDEWALK. An in-lieu fee, based on $10 per square foot, shall be paid
prior to issuance of a building permit to pay for future construction of a sidewalk across the
entire Winchester Boulevard project frontage.
54. TRAIL CONNECTION. The trail connection between the Los Gatos Creek Trail and
Winchester Boulevard shall be constructed by the developer as part of the first development
phase. The trail shall be maintained by the developer if the connection is provided through
private property. The Town shall maintain the trail if the facilities are constructed within
either Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) property or within land dedicated to the
Town in a form approved by the Director of Parks and Public Works. Should the trail be
constructed within SCVWD property, the developer shall update the existing Joint Use
Agreement between the Town and SCVWD prior to map recordation.
55. RAILROAD CROSSING MAINTENANCE. The portion ofthe Winchester driveway within
the VTA right of way shall be maintained by the developer and VTA. The Town will not
maintain new facilities within the VTA right of way.
56. INSURANCE. One million dollars ($1,000;000) of liability insurance holding the Town
harmless shall be provided in a format acceptable to the Town Attorney before recordation
of the parcel map
57. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE (COMMERCIAL) The developer shall pay a
proportional to the project's share of transportation improvement needed to serve cumulative
16
i
- 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 applications is made. The fee
shall be paid before the building permit is issued. The traffic impact mitigation fee for this
project, using the current fee schedule and the preliminary plans is S 1,070,466. The final fee
shall be calculated from the final plans using the rate schedule in effect at the time of the
building permit application, and shall be based on the net increase in trip generation as
determined by the traffic analysis prepared by Fehr and Peers.
58. ECO PASS. The owner of the development shall offer and fully finance Eco Pass stickers
for all full-time employees within the development site. Proof of Eco Pass purchases shall
be provided to the Town annually.
59. PLAN CHECK FEES. Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to submittal
of plans to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department.
60. INSPECTION FEES. Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of
any Permit or recordation of the Final Map.
61. GENERAL. All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications. 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 a special 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.
17
e
62. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. All work in the public right-of-way will require a
Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security.
63. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS. The developer or his representative shall notify the
Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting an 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 ow work that went on without inspection.
64. 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 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.
65. SURVEYING CONTROLS. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by
a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the
following items:
18
a. Retaining wall--top of wall elevations and locations
b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes
66. PRECONSTRUCTION PAVEMENT SURVEY. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the
project Applicant shall complete a pavement condition survey documenting the extent of
existing pavement defects using a 35-mm or digital video camera. The survey shall extend
the full length of the truck haul route within the Town limits. The results shall be
documented in a report and submitted to the Town for review.
67. POSTCONSTRUCTION PAVEMENT SURVEY. The project Applicant will complete a
pavement condition survey to determine whether road damage occurred as a result of project
construction and whether there were changes in pavement strength. Rehabilitation
improvements required to restore.the pavement to pre-construction condition and strength
shall be proposed by the applicant. The results shall be documented in a report and
submitted to the Town for review and approval. The Applicant shall be responsible for
completing any required road repairs prior to release of the occupancy permit.
68. EROSION CONTROL. Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and
submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department. A
maximum of two weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on
an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures, to be
carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping shall be
included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences,
fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding
specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control
measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The grading,
19
0
drainage, erosion control plans and S WPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures
contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of Order 01-024 of the amended Santa
Clara County NPDES Permit.
69. SITE DRAINAGE. Stormwater detention facilities shall be provided to insure that post
project runoff is less than or equal to pre-development rates.
70. STORM DRAINAGE OUTFALL. The drainage outfall shall be televised prior to the
architecture and site submittal to verify that the existing facilities are in an acceptable
physical condition. The videotape shall be submitted to the Town Engineer for review and
approval. In the event that the facility is unacceptable, the architecture and site plans shall
reflect the proposed improvements needed to rehabilitate the outfall condition.
71. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PREVENTION. On-site drainage systems shall
include a filtration devices such as bio-swales and mechanical filters (i.e. Storm Septor)
placed upstream of the site discharge point.
72. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. It is the responsibility of contractor and
home owner 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 be washed into
the Town's storm drains.
73. UTILITIES. The developer shall install all utility services, including telephone, electric
power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code
§27.50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit
shall be provided for cable television service.
74. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The developer shall repair or replace all
existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of
20
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. 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. Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction
Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
75. CURB AND GUTTER. The developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards
any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. New curb and gutter
shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. The limits of curb and gutter repair will be
determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the
project.
76. DESIGN CHANGES. The Applicant's registered Engineer shall notify the Town Engineer,
in writing, at least 72 hours in advance of all differences between the proposed work and the
design indicated on the plans. Any proposed changes shall be subject to the approval of the
Town before altered work is started. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the
final "as-built" drawings.
77. AS-BUILT PLANS. After completion of the construction of all work, the original plans
shall have all changes (change orders and field changes) clearly marked. The "as-built" plans
shall again be signed and "wet-stamped by the civil engineer who prepared the plans,
attesting to the changes. The original "as-built" plans shall be review and approved the
Engineering Inspector. A Mylar and AutoCAD disk of the approved "as-built" plans shall
21
W
be provided to the Town before the Faithful Performance Security or Occupancy Permit is
released. The AutoCAD file shall include only the following information and shall conform
to the layer naming convention: a) Building Outline, Layer: BLDG-OUTLINE; b) Driveway,
Layer: DRIVEWAY; c) Retaining Wall, Layer: RETAINING WALL, d) Swimming Pool,
Layer: SWIMMING-POOL; e) Tennis Court, Layer: TENNIS-COURT; 0 Property Line,
Layer: PROPERTY-LINE; g) Contours, Layer: NEWCONTOU All as-built digital files
must be on the same coordinate basis as the Town's survey control network and shall be
submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or higher.
78. SANITARY SEWER LATERAL. Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley
Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused.
Install a sanitary sewer lateral clean-out at the property line.
79. GREASE TRAPS. Meet all requirement of the Santa Clara County Health Department and
West Valley Sanitation District for the interception, separation or pretreatment of effluent.
80. CONSTRUCTION NOISE. Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall be
allowed. The Building Official mayrestrict construction activities between 7:00 am and 8:00
am weekdays. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding
eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet. 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.
22
81. SITE SECURITY. Prior to commencement of any site work or the introduction of any earth
moving equipment or building materials onto the site, the applicant shall insure that a
temporary fence constructed of materials and located to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development has been constructed. This fence shall be in place as approved
until the Director of Community Development shall allow it to be removed or changed. The
fence may only be expanded or contracted in size upon approval of the Director of
Community Development. Failure to adhere to this condition of approval shall result in the
permit being brought to the Planning Commission for its review and introduction of stricter
site and building construction regulations.
82. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement
of any site work, the general contractor shall:
a. Along with the project applicant, attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town
Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site
maintenance and other construction matters;
b. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of
approval, and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and
understand them prior to commencing work and that a copy of the project conditions
of approval will be posted on site at all times during construction
83. EARTH MOVEMENT PLAN. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall
develop an earth movement and management program under the supervision of a licensed
soils engineer for review and approval by the Engineering *Division of the Department of
Parks and Public Works.
23
84. 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. The Traffic Control
Plan shall require that construction traffic use the main driveway at Winchester/SR85 on
ramp. Construction traffic shall not be allowed on A Street without the express approval
of the-Town Engineer.
85. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING. Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times.
during the course of construction. Superintendence of construction shall be diligently
performed 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 a special permit is issued by the Engineering Division.
86. SITE SUPERVISION. The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the
job site at all times during construction.
87. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL. The Applicant shall prepare a traffic control
plan for incorporation into the construction bid documents. The plan shall be submitted
with the grading permit application and is subject to the review and approval of the Town
Engineer.
Parks Division
88. GENERAL. All existing and newly planted trees, except those identified for removal, are
specific subjects of approval of this project and shall remain on the site,
24
89. TREE REPLACEMENT. Replacement trees of a size and number adequate to mitigate the
loss of existing mature trees shall be planted on the project site. The new trees shall be
included on the comprehensive landscape plan to be reviewed as part of the Architecture &
Site approval process.
90. NEW TREES. Newly planted and relocated trees shall be double-staked, using rubber tree
ties and shall be planted prior to acceptance of the subdivision or architecture and site
approval as determined by the Parks & Forestry Superintendent.
91. IRRIGATION. All newly planted landscaping shall be irrigated by an in-ground irrigation
system. Special care shall be taken to avoid irrigation which will endanger existing native
trees and shrubs.
92. WATER EFFICIENCY. This project is subject to the Town's Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance, Chapter 26, Article IV of the Town Code. A fee of $472 shall be paid when the
landscape, irrigation plans and water calculations are submitted for review.
93. TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree protection fencing shall be placed at the drip lines
of existing trees to be retained in the areas of construction. Fencing shall be four foot.high
chain link attached to steel poles driven two feet into the ground when at the dripline of a
tree. If the fencing is within eight feet of the trunk of a tree, a fence base may be used, as is
typical in a chain link fence is rented.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
94. HOSE VALVES/STANDPIPES. Buildings that are three or more stories in height or where
emergency access has beendeemed minimal shall be equipped with standpipes designed per
25
0,
NFPA Standard 414, and shall be equipped with 2%z inch hose valves. The locations of the
2% hose valves may be determined prior to development of the fire sprinkler plan. The
existing Fire Department connection shall be replaced with a device similar or equal to Potter
Roemer Model 5776, four way, individually clappered connection. Domestic water shall not
be fed from the fire service line.
95. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW. Required fire flow is 5,750 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure.
96. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER. SYSTEM. Buildings requiring a fire flow in excess of
2,000 GPM shall be equipped with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system,
hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards #13.
97. FINAL REQUIRED FIRE FLOW. Required fire flow may be reduced up to 50% in
buildings equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems, but can be no less that 1500 GPM.
Therefore, the final required fire flow of 2,875 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure shall be
available from any two hydrants on or near the site, provided that they have a maximum
spacing of 250 feet.
98. PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANTS. Provide fire hydrants at locations to be determined by the
Fire Department. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 250 feet with a minimum single flow
of 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi. residual pressure. Prior to design, the project civil
engineer shall meet with the Fire Department water supply officer to jointly spot the
required fire hydrant location.
99. FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION IDENTIFIER. Prior to final inspection, a "blue" dot shall
be placed in the roadway near each fire hydrant, as directed by the Fire Department.
26
100. FIRE LANE MARKING REQUIRED. Provide marking for all roadways within the project.
Markings shall be per fire department specifications. Installation shall also conform to Local
Government Standards and Fire Department Standard Details & Specifications A-6.
101. FIRE DEPARTMENT KEY BOX. The buildings shall be equipped with a permanently
installed emergency access key lock box (knox) conforming to Fire Department Standard
detail and Specification sheet K-l. Access keys shall be provided to the Fire Department at
the time of final inspection.
102. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE) ACCESS ROADS REQUIRED. Provide access roadways
with a paved all weather surface and a minimum width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13
feet six inches, minimum circulating turning radius complying with Truck #5 specifications.
Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-1.
103. EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNAROUND. Provide an approved Fire Department engine
roadway turnaround as maybe required, with a minimum radius complying with Truck #5
specifications. Installations shall conform with the Fire Department Standard Details and
Specification sheet A-1.
104. TIMING OF REQUIRED INSTALLATIONS. The required fire services, fire hydrants and
access road installations, up through the first lift of asphalt, shall be in place, inspected, and
accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of framing. Bulk construction materials
shall not be delivered to the site until the hydrants and roadway have been accepted.
Clearance for building permits will not be given until such time as this requirement is
addressed by the developer, to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. During construction,
emergency access roads shall be maintained clear and unimpeded.
27
0
105. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION. Approved addresses shall be placed on all new buildings so
they are clearly visible and legible from the streets or roads fronting the property. Numbers
shall be a minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with their background, and shall
be illuminated for nighttime viewing.
106. INTERIOR COURTYARDS. The applicant shall provide a plan showing Fire Department
access to interior courtyards.
107. FIRE ACCESS. The applicant shall provide a plan showing alternate compliance to
providing, fire access to buildings that exceed the 150' travel distance through an alternate
method and material application.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE POLICE CHIEF:
108. SECURITY REVIEW. The applicant shall meet with the Police Department to review the
construction plans, and shall make any recommended design improvements needed for
security, crime prevention or safety. A security consultant will be hired at the applicant's
expense to assist the Town in the security review. The consultant will work at the direction
of the Town.
109. SECURITY GUARD. A security guard shall be on the premises during nighttime hours.
A thorough security plan component shall be established between the developer and the
Police Department.
110. GARAGE LIGHTING. Lighting at garage entrances shall fully light the entry area. Interior
garage lighting shall be on 24-hours a day.
28
112. PATHWAY LIGHTING. Path lights shall be provided along the trail from the Winchester
Blvd. entrance to the creek trail.
113. CREEK TRAIL LANDSCAPING. Landscaping along the creek trail shall be selected and
planted so that it does not provide a place where a person can be concealed. Low shrubs
and/or non-dense trees are recommended in this area.
114. OFFICE PARKING. The applicant shall notify the Police Department of any parking
restrictions for the surface space around the office buildings.
29
SECTION VI
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos on , 2003, 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 effect 30 days
after it is adopted.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
S DEV'ORDSU4300-14350Win-TC.Wpd
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
30
D
Ave
ii
D
yI9hwa
:5-128
TONVN or' LOS GATOS
Application No. PD-03-1. A.P.N. # 424-32-0680'
Modification of approved Planned Development (Ordinance 2095).
recommended by Planning Commission Date: -
Approved by Town Council Date: Ord:
I Town Clerk Mavor
Exhibit A
State of
asA
Page 1
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
(2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
(3) PUBLIC HEARING
(4) 14300 WINCHESTER BLVD.
(5) 16495 TOPPING AVENUE
(61 15220 KENNEDY ROAD
( 7) Town Council Chambers
(8) 110 East Main Street
(9) Los Gatos, California
(101 Taken on
(11) December 10, 2003
(12) #14559
(17)
(34)
(is)
(16)
(17)
(1a)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(zz)
(27)
(24)
(25)
PUSUC HEARING - DECEMBER
Page 2
(1) A P P E A R A N C E S:
(31
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Paul Dubois, Chair
( 4)
Michael Burke
Phil Micciche
( 5)
Lee Quintana
Joanne Talesfore
( 7)
Director of
(a)
community
Development:
Bud N. Lortz
( 9)
(1o)
Transcribed bye
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES
BY: LISA A. GLANVILLE.
(u)
CSR 9932 .
1083 Lincoln,Avenue
(12)
San Jose, CA 95125
(408) 920-0222
(13)
(14)
--000--
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(u)
(z21
(z3)
(241
(zs)
( 2)
( 3)
(4) Continued Public Hearings
(s) 14300 Winchester Avenue
Architecture and Site
(a) Application S-02-42
Subdivision Application N-02-5
( 7)
( a)
New Public Hearings
( 9)
16495 Topping Avenue
(10) Architecture and Site
Application S-03-43
(31)
(12) 15220 Kennedy Road
Architecture and Site
(131 Application S-01-98
Negative Declaration ND-04-3
(14)
(1s)
(26) --oOo--
(17)
(la)
(191
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(241
(25)
Page 3
(1) A G E N D A .
Page
4
65
95
Page 4
(1) PROCEEDINGS:
(2)
(3) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Moving onto continued
(4) public hearings. 14300 Winchester Boulevar
d,
(5) Manned development application PD-03-1, requesting
(6) approval to - to modify a planned development
(7) relating to allow - allow square footage of office
(8) space and number of apartment units on property
(9) zoned CM:PD.
(1o) Is the applicant here? Mr. Shenk.
(11) JOHN SHENK: Goad evening. John Shenk,
(12) Sobrato Development Companies. I'm back. I - 1
(13) want to just briefly give an = an overview of our
(14) project, the process and - and what we're hoping
(15) for this evening.
(16) As you know, the modified project provides
(17) a project with less overall height, less mass, less
(1 a) volume, all of the numbers that we've - we've
(19) talked through before. Specifically and importantly
(20) we think, just to remember again, that it's - its
(21) 20 percent less volume of - of building out on the
(22) site from the approved project and - and ten
(23) percent less trips, average daily trips on the - on
(24) the streets, while still achieving and actually
(25) improving the transit oriented development nature of
Attachment 3
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (40B) 920-0222 Page 1 to Page 4
BSA ° - - PUBLIC HEARING - [
Page 5
(i) the site or of the development that we're achieving
(2) all of the same important goals and policies set
(a) forth by the Town for this unique site with this
(4) modified plan that - and just - and as a result,
(5) lowering the impacts of the development
(6) The - there was some discussion on - on
M open space that I did want to point out, because
(a) I - I didn't point out the numbers last time. But
(s) the - the Town Code for this development, it would
(1o) be on the residential side, would be for 268 feet
(1 i) per unit of - of - that would be the requirement
(12) for the open space. And we're providing almost
(13) double that in that open space - in the way that
(14) that open space is defined. There is almost six
(15) acres of open space, landscape area, walkways.
(16) That - that does include the - the private
(17) balconies, the private open space. But its a huge
(1a) amount of open space. It can be hard to perceive,
(19) but there is. The numbers - the numbers are the
(2o) numbers.
(21) 1 wanted to tell you that we will continue
(22) to consider and will continue to implement design
(m) refinements as we go through the process. There is
(24) a lot of process yet to happen, and our commitment
(25) is there to - to incorporate things that do improve
Page 6
(1) the project, and our commitment is there to work
(2) with Staff, Consulting Architect, as we go
(3) forward - when we go forward.
(4) 1 want to state that - that we have
(5) worked cooperatively and collaboratively with the
(s) Town for years. We've really taken the position of
(7 putting our best foot forward at each step. We
(a) haven't come in with more square footage to simply
(9) give square footage away, or come in with units to
(1o) give units away through the process. We really ,
(11) wanted to - there's a lot of work that s gone into
(12) a project before we show it to you in working with
(13) Staff. And sometimes that's - that's - you all
(14) aren't - you don't benefit from that process, but 1
(15) want to tell you that there is a lot of process that
(16) goes into our projects before we get to you.
(17) The - we're some of the excitement
(1a) is - the balloon was popped a bit, but I'm - I'm
(1s) very excited about this project. I really think it
(20) ' is a vast improvement When - when looked at through
(21) the eyes of Town goals and policies and - and
(22) impacts. And we are excited, and hopefully, you
(23) know, you all will, you know, appreciate the benefit
(24) that is this plan offers. And we are here tonight
(25) to specifically ask for your recommendation to
)ECEMBER 10, 2003 XMAXM )
Page 7
(1). Council with whatever that may be, whatever your
(2) requirements are, and I'm here to answer any
(a) questions, anything regarding the affordable housing
(4) and our - the option that we offered last time to
(5) increase the number of affordable housing by
(6) incorporating Riviera Terrace into the mix.
(7) Any of those things, I - I'm happy to
(a) answer the questions. I'll put this - put this up.
(s) There was some discussion last week about the tot
(1o) lot location, a view corridor through the site, st
(11) cetera. We studied the - that doesn't come in
(12) super clear, but the back of the site, and by simply
(13) decreasing the - or making the V a little more
(14) narrow thats over on the north side there, that
(1s) area exactly, we're able to shift buildings over and
(16) realty try to (inaudible, away from the microphone)
(17) going to have to put back and forth here on your
(1a) site plans, but as you come up from the leasing
(19) office and on to that podium through the project
(2o) (inaudible, away from the microphone), which I
(21) believe is an improvement, as well as with the
(22) activity level here, there is a pool fence and such,
(23) this area could have a separate fence or not, kind
(24) of wondering what the security consuftant's Input
(25) may be on that, but we think this is an interesting
Page 8
(1) option.
(2) And I hope to entertain some feedback from
(a) you all this evening on - on this option. Thank
(4) You.
(5) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Good timing. Okay.
(6) Questions for Mr. Shenk? Any questions at this
(7) point of Mr. Shenk?
(6) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I do. This is
(s) just to clarify actually some information from last
(1o) week that I'm not sure I remember correctly. What
(11) was the size of the, main green space, the common
(12) green in the middle of the project? I think you had
(is) mentioned that it was
(14) JOHN SHENK: Off the top of my head, I
(15) don't know. We can -
(16) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - that it was
(17) equal in size to the Town Plaza?
(1a) JOHN SHENK: No, no.
(19) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay.
(2o) JOHN SHENK: Two-thirds of Town Plaza.
(21) I'm thinking a half. It was - I remember it wasn't
(22) all of Town Plaza obviously, but about a half 1
(23) would guesstimate.
(24) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay.
(25) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Other questions for
Page 5 to Page 8 (408) 920.0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
35A a 0 iPUS IC HEARING - DECENWBER 10, 2003 xiwax(sr3)
Page 9
(1)
Mr. Shenk? Commissioner Burke:
(2)
COMMISSIONER BURKE: This project and the
(3)
approved project, similar overall cost to you?
(4)
(Inaudible.)
(s)
JOHN SHENK: Yes.
(a)
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Yeah. What-
(7)
without - I don't want numbers, you know, dollars,
(a)
but ratio to - to land to improvements, is that an
(9)
80-20? 1 mean, improvements to land, is that an
(1 o)
80-20, a 60-40? I'm just trying to get a feel of -
(11)
of - of -
(12)
JOHN SHENK: 80-20.85-15.1 -
(13)
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Butthat-that
(14)
generally, it's not a 50-50 or -
(15)
JOHN SHENK: Could be, yeah.
(16)
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay.
(17)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Any other questions for
(1 a)
Mr. Shenk at this time? I guess not. Thank you
(19)
very much, sir.
(2o)
JOHN SHENK: Thank you.
(21)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. This is an
(22)
opportunity for any member of the public who would
(23)
like to speak to this application. I only have one
(24)
card right now. Oh, I have more than one card. I'm
(25)
sorry. Okay. We're going to start off with
Page 10
(1)
Mr. Davis, 'cause he gave us the first card, so
(2)
Mr. Davis, you're up.
(3)
RAY DAVIS: Yes. Down here just finishing
(4)
up, you know. Getting ready to head out over the
(s)
hill, get me a new community, where democ -
(6)
American democracy is alive and well.-Oh, boy,1
(7)
can hardly wait, okay.
(a)
But, you know, while I'm here and up to
(9)
speed on this matter, I'm going to give you the
(1o)
benefit of my, what I consider sterling comments. I
(11)
hope you do, too.
(12)
Number one, this is the same proposal, so
(13)
they didn't - they didn't- their (inaudible)
(14)
direction at the last meeting to come up with some
(15)
new ideas, okay. Flat out, you know, correct me if
(try
I'm wrong here.
(17)
Number two, Mr. Lortz told you last time
(19)
that the water company property was - was, you
(19)
know, master planned as C-1. Excuse me, I went up
(20)
to the master plan. They're rated 01 right smack
(21)
there, and you can see the C-1 in pink is right up
(22)
to the north entrance of Highway 85. So that's way
(23)
into the property, okay, owned by these gentlemen.
(24)
So I think Mr. Lortz needs to recant his statement,
(25)
i
okay.
Page 11
(1) Number three, architecturally the project
(2) 1 think is best described as institutional. I mean,
(3) as a gateway project for Los Gatos, where anywhere
(4) in this Town is there anything like it? Show me.
(s) You know, this is an abomination in terms of the
(6) architecture, okay.
(7) The - and lastly, traffic. Nobody's
(a) talked about traffic. Well, I read the Staff
(9) Report, and there's 300 and some odd car trips per
(1o) day less in this project than the one that was
(11) approved. That's 300 and some odd out of about
(12) 3,700. Hardly significant. Hardly a significant
(13) reduction. If this plan is approved as shown there,
(14) the traffic will be again unbelievable at this
(1 s) portion of Town, particularly when you be in the
(try traffic from the Jewish Community Center that's to
(17) be built, you know, fairly soon, with its massive
(1 a) onslaught of traffic, too.
(19) And again, I want to bring up the point
(2o) there's no one on this Town Staff that is adding up
(21) the accumulation, cumulative.impacts of traffic from
(22) all the approved projects over the years. There's
(23) no one doing that There's no one looking to the
(24) future to try to see what the Town will be when all
(2s) these projects - projects, if they're built, go on
Page 12
(1) line. And it's a - it is a crime. And I will not
(2) be here to - if they - if it occurs, to suffer the
(3) consequences.I promise you.
(4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you, Mr. Davis.
(s) Michele Jehenson.
(6) MICHELE JEHENSON: My name is Michele
gli Jehenson. I'm a citizen of Monte Sereno. And 1
(a) just wanted to say that in Los Gatos or Monte
(9) Sereno, when you buy a piece of land, you're not
(1o) allowed to build just anything on it. When you buy
(11) land in Los Gatos, you also buy into the community
(12) of Los Gatos, and you also buy into the set of
(13) restrictions imposed by the City of Los Gatos,
(14) setbacks, height restrictions, covered - coverage
(1s) ratio, aesthetics, whatever.
(16) When I bought my house, I also bought into
(17) a homeowners association. They can tell me that my
(1e) color is not suitable to the neighborhood. They can
(19) fine me for not keeping up my house my - not my
(2o) housekeeping, they can't fine me for this, but my
(21) front yard.
(22) Homeowners often incur costs due to these
(23) restrictions, like a full fenced yard for a swimming
(24) pool so people trespassing don't drown in your pool.
(25) These restrictions are for a purpose. They're for
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 9 to Page 12
BSA PUBLIC HEARING - I
Page 13
(1) my neighbors, my community. I would call these
12) restrictions to be the community benefits that is
(3) imposed - that are imposed on homeowners. And when
(4) 1 hear Its not Sobrato's responsibility to provide
(s) land for a soccer field just because the community
(e) desperately needs ft, and I think that you were
M quoted, Commissioner Quintana, saying something like
(a) that my response is why not. They need a community
(s) benefit, we have a community need. Why can't we
(io) make that work?
(11) Why is it so wrong to impose a community
(12) benefit on developers when everybody - every
p3) homeowner agrees to community benefits for their
(14) on their own property? It is - it is a restriction
(is) on us as well, and we accept it as part of being a
(is) community.
(17) You know, the thing that you may not
(is) realize is that this happens in other communities.
(ig) It happens in Benecia; It happened to Benecia. A
(2o) developer had to give up 20 acres - it was a much
(21) larger piece of land, ft was about a hundred - a
(22) hundred acres, but the Town imposed that restriction
(23) on developer. The developer wanted to develop as it
(24) saw fit. It had to give up land. And Benecia ended
(25) up with a beautiful facility with a rec center
Page 14
(1) that - that puts ours to shame, five soccer fields,
(2) five baseball diamonds.
(3) We're not even asking that much. We - an
(4) acre and a half'for Sobrato is like a droplets in
(5) their swimming pool. I mean, they're out thereto
(s) make money, and that's fine, they're developers.
(7) That's their job. But you're out there to build a
(e) community. That is your job, and that's why I hold
(9) you to ft. It's as simple as that.
(10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you. Are there
(11) any questions from the Commission? Seeing none,
(12) thank you very much. Appreciate ft. Dale Hill.
(13) DALE HILL: I am bale Hill. I live at 150
(14) Robin Way in Los Gatos, and I'm speaking again for
(15) the Southwest Santa Clara Valley League of Women
(16) Voters. I'm beginning to feel like a broken record
(17) restating our support of this' amended project based
(m) on our-housing position.
(19) It is important, though, to keep the focus
(2o) on the fact that this project supplies a significant
(21) number of dwelling units. It is no secret that the
(22) housing shortage is severe in this area, as well as
(23) other areas of the state, as exemplified by the
(24) distances people are having to commute.
(25) We learned recently at a meeting that the
)ECEMHER 10, 2003 xti1Ax(4M
Page 15
(1) population of California will grow, like it or not,
(2) by the equhiaient of seven Los Angeleses in the
(3) foreseeable future. I don't remember what the
(4) period mentioned was, but we all went sort of uh.
(s) That's the way ft is.
(e) Los Gatos' cannot declare Itself Immune
M from the responsibility to provide housing when a
(9) well designed project is brought to us. You have
(s) here the opportunity to provide homes to 295
(io) households, both market rate and below market units.
(11) And that's all I'm going to say tonight.
(12) Thank you.
(13) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thankyou. Any
(14) questions for Ms. Hill? Commissioner Quintana
(15) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I just want to ask
(1e) you a question. I think you actually answered my
(17 'question that I was going to ask, which is that in
(i a) reviewing the project, you - ft's been reviewed
(1g) both for policy and design?
(2o) DALE HILL: The League of Women Voters
pi) does not have a position on design.
(22) . COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay, thank you.
(23) DALE HILL- There are many things l would
(24) like to say about the project and about the
(25) discussion that's gone on. I am speaking from the
Page 16
(1) League's housing position and, therefore, I am
(2) constrained, because we just don't ad lib when we're
(3) speaking for the League.
(4) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. So l think
(5) you answered my question.
(s) DALE HILL: Yeah. Yeah. I have looked at
(7) the, you know, the design, and - and I have read
(a) the reports each time I've prepared to come, and -
(s) but I've - I've gone as far as I think I should.
0D) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you. Martin Hall.
(11) MARTIN HALL: Good evening Commissioners.
(12) My name's Martin Hall. i live on Lilac Lane in Los
(13) Gatos. And I'm here this evening first of all,
(14) I'm a parent, soccer coach and a volunteer with the
(1s) Los Gatos Soccer League.
(16) I'm here this evening hopefully to try and
(17) close a. loop. First of all, can I ask all of you,
(19) did you receive copies of the petition and the
(19) supporting comments?
(2o) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: That was in the desk
(21) ftem tonight, Mr. Hall.
(22) MARTIN HALL: Okay. I just wanted to
(23) check. So what we included in that were - was the
(24) support of 200 families. And we didn't try very
(25) hard to get that. I wanted to give you, you know, a
Page 13 to Page 16 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA' PUSUC HEARING - [
Page 17
(1) sense of the depth of feeling within the community,
(2) and I think you Commissioners heard that previously.
(3) There continue to be newspaper articles, and we'll
(4) continue to voice the depth of feeling and the real
(s) need for a soccer field in Los Gatos.
(s) The loop that I realty want to close is
(7) that I heard at the meeting in October, the majority
(s) of Commissioners asked Sobrato Development to come
(9) back with some way in which they could help with a
(10) soccer field. The community says this is important,
(11)' the elected officials are saying this is important.
(12) The elected officials asked Sobrato Development to
(13) come back and make some comments on this, and all 1
(14) heard at the November meeting were yeah, we kind of
(15) agree with that, but we don't think we should do
(16) anything about It.
(17) So what I would like to do is kind of
(18) close the loop, say that there are people standing
(19) ready to roll up their sleeves and work with Sobrato
(20) Development, (inaudible) Sobrato Development,
(21) approach us, engage, understand the depth of
(22) feeling, understand your need. And it states in the
(23) General Plan the need to provide for the community,
(24) come to us, tell us how you will help us, how you
(2s) will engage on the subject, how will you help us get
Page 18
(1) a soccer field for the community of Los Gatos.
(2) If it's not at this development, where is
(3) it? We will continue to voice the strength of
(4) feeling. I'll go back and get several hundred more,
(5) if that's necessary. But we're standing ready to
(5) work with you, so please engage, please think
(7) outside that box, 'cause every time I sit in these
(a) meetings, I hear inside the box the discussions
(s) about everything that's in there. Outside the box
(10) is the community of Los Gatos. We're the community
(11) of Los Gatos. The soccer playing families of the
(12)
(13)
(14)
0E~
(16)
(17)
(1 a)
(1 s)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
community of Los Gatos.
Think outside that box. You've been asked
about soccer. Engage, work with us, we'll roll up
our sleeves, we'll work with you, but let's start
talking.
And one final point. I've got - I'm not
allowed to give, by virtue of the - the permissions
that I got from the people who submitted their names
to the petition, I'm not allowed to give you names
and contact details, but I will, Mr. Shenk, give you
a copy of all the comments that represent that
(inaudible) in Los Gatos. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Are there any questions?
Seeing none, thank you very much, sir, I appreciate
IECEMSER 10, 2003 XMAX(5M
Page 19
(1) It I have no other cards from anyone else. Is
(2) there anyone else who would like to speak to this
(3) issue from the public? If so, 1 need to hear from
(4) you now. Okay. Seeing no one stepping forward,
(5) I'll call on Mr. Shenk back. Do you have any
(6) rebuttais that you would like to address, silt
(7) Are there any questions for Mr. Shenk
(6) before we close the public hearing from the
(9) Commission? Commissioner Quintana. Mr. Shenk.
(10) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Justforthe
(11) record, would you outline the changes that have been
(12) made to the project from the last time we saw It
(13) JOHN SHENK: The changes, we did some - a
(14) significant amount of clean up in the plans where
(1s) there were some arrows that were errant, and there
(1e) were some misidentified sheet notes and such
(17) things.
(1 s) Of substance, I believe - and I'll check
(19) in a minute, but the one change is we have - we now
(20) show the trash enclosure on the north side of the
(21) northern office building near the garage entry. If
(22) 1 had my little pointer, I'd help you. Right up at
(23) the top there, yes, ma'am. And in that - in
(24) re-working that area, the parking proximate to that
(25) trash enclosure area is - is changed as well. So
Page 20
(1) just to the north of that building is the change,
(2) And - and not in the plan, but as - as
(3) an offered suggestion or aftemate, if you will,
(4) layout for the townhouse buildings, is the - is the
(s) sheet that I've shown, and we can put back up if you
(6) like.
(7) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. With regard
(a) to that tot lot, were any solar shadow studies done
(9) to see whether its going to be in shade during the
(10) winter?
(11) JOHN SHENK: The shadow study in the plan
(12) is of the current project, so we could peek at that
(13) very quickly to see what the shadows - it looks
(14) like just on the December 21st date in the later
(15) afternoon, 3:00 p.m., there would be the impact
(16) across that building. Most of the shadows move from
(17) the.east to the west, so the fact that this - the
(19) fact that the tot lot is located at the eastern side
(19) of the buildings, they don't really throw shadows.
(20) (Inaudible, speaking away from the microphone.)
(21) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay.Thankyou.
(22) Do I have another question? I don't think so. Oh,
(23) yes, I do.
(24) Just to clarify that the podium venting
(25) or - I don't know what to call it, the area that is
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 17 to Page 20
BSA PUBLIC HEARING - I
Page 21
(1) not berthed.
(2) JOHN SHENK Yes.
(3) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: On the' previous
(4) project, you say you didn'fneed to do mechanical
(5) ventilation.
(6) JOHN SHENK: We don't think that we did.
m We didn't actually get through, as we're not now,
(a) enough engineering to determine if there's any
(9) assistance needed. I'm - I'm certain that it
(1o) wasn't - it wouldn't be a fully mechanically
,(i q ventilated garage. Sometimes in - when the final
(12) design's done and the structural happens, you end up
(13) with walls, and I'll call ita dead spot of air, and
(14) it requires afan. So I wouldn't want to say in any
(15) plan there would be no mechanical assistance at all,
(is) but it was not a mechanically ventilated garage from
(11) a full sense.
(18) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Thank you.
(19) JOHN SHENK: Sure.
(20) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: CommissionerTalesfore.
(21) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Yeah, I - you
(a2) know, I still have a - a'concern about the traffic.
(23) And the average daily trips were supposedly at 4,000
(24) before the reduction, ten percent reduction; is that.
(25) correct?
Page 22
(1) JOHN SHENK: 1 don't recall the numbers
(2) off the top of my head. I do recall checking the
(3) ten percent reduction.
(4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Can Staff give a -
(s) A VOICE: The numbers was the low 3,000
(s) range. I don't have the exact numbers with me, but
(7) it was 3,300 to 3,500 range.
(9) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay. 3,500
(s) possibly? So - so we're looking at a reduction of
(io) ten percent, so that's, what, 350 cars? Okay, all
(11) right.
(12) And then, also, your overall reduction in
(13) volume of the building, was that in - was that R&D,
(14) reduction of R&D or-
(15) JOHN SHENK: We measured the volume of the
(16) project, the R&D office and the residential of the
(17) approved plan -
(13) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Uh-huh.
(19) JOHN SHENK: - and the same in the
(2o) modified, and compared the two and came up with that
(21) difference.
(22) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay. There
(23) are - and just for clarification, it was a little
(24) hard for me to count, but how many buildings are on
(25) the property in the apartments and the R&D
)ECEMBER 10, 2003 XMAX(SM
Page 23
(i) buildings, if you total them up?
(2) JOHN SHENK: Eleven.
(3) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Is that under one
(4) roof, or are those -
(s) JOHN SHENK: No, ma'am. That would be all
(s) of the buildings. So each office building has its
(7) own roof and is a separate building.
(a) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I -1 had a hard
(s) time counting. Mine was somewhere between eleven
(to) and fourteen or fifteen'.
(11) JOHN SHENK: Yeah. ,I count eleven.
(12) ' COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay: And then
(13) you talked also about other refinements that you
(14) will be working on, other than the elimination of
(is) the deletion of arrows and deletion of incorrect
(16) total number of the ones you mention here in our
(17) Staff Report. What what other refinements are
(1e) you thinking for
(19) JOHN SHENK: I'm referring to I don't
(2o) have anything in - in the back of my head at this
(21) .point. I'm referring to things that may come up
(22) from the Consulting Architect at a later point, just
(23) confirming 'our'- our willingness to work and to see
(24) through other - other good refinements.
(2s) One issue that we have left on the table
Page 24
(1) are the specific architectural details that- that
(2) can happen. I think we offered up a pallet of four
(3) that we feel are appropriate to mix Into the
(4) project. And while that's not refined, and it's
(5) not- and for that reason it's not reflected in'our
(s) plans specifically, those four elements are
(7) committed to, and we'll work with the Consulting
(8) Architect and Staff to incorporate them into
(9) specific locations.
Rio) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE Thankyou.
(11) JOHN SHENK: Sure.
(12) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I have a quick question
(13) for you. On the addendum to the EIR, I believe 1
(14) read that the undocumented fill needed to.be
(15) removed, and that-will all have to be removed and
(16) then put in I guess with documented fill, I don't
(17) know what the correct word is. Has any testing been
(18) done on site to determine are there any residues
(1g) left over from the previous user there, and If so,
(2o) the movement. of this stuff, is this going to present.
(21) any environmental hazards to us, or what are we
(22) doing to protect, If there is any chemical there
(23) (inaudible)?
(24) JOHN SHENK: I would say we - we have
(25) fully searched the site. There are slash were, some
Page 21 to Page 24 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
s,
dSA -
PUBLIC HEARING - DECEMBER 10, 2003
Page 25
(1) have been removed already, toxins, environmentally
(2) not healthy things left by Maxim. That was - we
(3) figured that out going through the purchase.
(4) There's a whole process that we go through, not only
(s) with the Town, but the Regional Water Quality
(s) Control Board, the - with the air group. With the
(7) air group, the water - the different state health
(s) agencies all get involved in these permits that
(9) allow you to clean up the site. Off - and some of
(1o) that is off hauling the - the soils to a facility
(1i) that handles contaminated soil.
(12) So it.would be through that process that
(13) we would clean up the rest of the site. And
(14) removing the undocumented fill, and there's some -
(15) what do they call them? Some sort of piles that
(16li were left in there, all that's got to come out, and
(17) then they do come back with not necessarily
(19) documented fill, but engineered fill is what they
(i g) call -it.
(2o) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Engineered fill.
(21) JOHN Shenk: And they'll fill It back so
(22) that its safe to build on.
(23) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: So I assume some of this
(24) undocumented fill may be some of the contaminated
(2s) soil? Or is that a good assumption or not?
Page 26
(1)
JOHN SHENK: I don'tthinkso.
(2)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: You don't think so.
(3)
JOHN SHENK: I don'tthinkso.
(4)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Okay. Thank you.
(s)
Any other questions for him? Yes, Commissioner,
(s)
Talesfore. No?
(7)
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I have all the
(a)
questions tonight.
(g)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: All right.
(10)
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: A clarification.
(11)
We discovered last month that you - that there was
(12)
tandem parking in the garage. Did you look at that
(13)
in any way to eliminate some of it'? I mean, I find
(14)
that a flaw with the parking design.
(15)
JOHN SHENK: We did remove some.
(16)
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: How many stalls
(17)
are there of the total, what, 400 and -
0a)
JOHN SHENK: I forget the number. We
(1g)
counted them last time. The - the way we looked at
(2o)
them, and the reason that there was - I think
(21)
Commissioner Quintana is the one who raised issue of
(22)
the increase in the number last time, and the reason
(23)
for the increase is that we had a significant
(24)
increase in the number of two bedroom apartments,
(25)
specifically the townhouse units. There is a - a
Page 27
(1) typical matter of practice In the apartment
(2) industry, atownhouse often gets atwo-car tandem
(3) garage or parking space. The thought being the
(4) occupants of that unit can manage for themselves
(s) whose car is where and who goes in first and out
(s) last and these kinds of things.
(7) So we're - we were very comfortable from
(9) an operational standpoint increasing the number of
(s) tandem stalls, because we had all of those townhouse
(1o) units.
(11) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Well, in a
(12) crowded city I know that sometimes that works. My
(13) daughter has that, but she fives in San Francisco.
(14) I was just curious, because we brought it up, N you
(is) had looked at somehow improve - addressing that in
(w) some way.
(17) JOHN SHENK: They were looking at- at -
(ia) at removing some in the office, but l - I
(i9) understand your question to be more pointed atthe,
(2o) residential. And that number is the same as it was
(21) before for the reasons that I stated before.
(22) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana.
(23) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Actually, I think
(24) you reduced the number of tandem parking spaces -
(2s) JOHN SHENK: They were just pointing
Page 28
(1) out-
(2) . COMMISSIONERQUINTANA: -forthe
(3) residential.
(4) JOHN SHENK: - (inaudible) saying at
(5) the - at the office. I understood her question of
(6) the residential. At the office, there were some
(7) where the trash enclosure is. And so that's as
(9) that wall moved back, those tandem - the tandem
(9) portion of that stall went away. But I - on the
(1o) residential side, as far as how ft functions and
(11) such, we feel comfortable that it will work and -
(12) and that number's the same.
(13) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Are there any other
(14) questions for Mr. Shenk? I have one more quick one.
(15) In previous iterations of drawings that we have seen
(16) up on the board, there was a little green section
(17) down in the lower left-hand corner that was on the
(1E) Water District property there. Now I see a great
(19) big long green strip up there. Is that little green
(zo) piece still in the property or not? Orwhat -
(21) JOHN SHENK: It is. It's - what it
(22) was -
(23) CHAIRMAN DUBCIS: I remember what it was
(24) from the original project.
(25) JOHN SHENK: Or maybe what it looked -
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 25 to Page 28
ssA a PUBLIC HEARING - I
Page 29
(1) not what it looked like, but what it was is - or
(2) what was a_- a - a hoped for piece of dirt from
(3) the Water District that could be used as some type
(4) of open space for the public. We still, and our
(5) commitment is there, want to make that happen. We
(s) pulled it off because it - we didn't want it to be
(7) perceived as something that was ,guaranteed. A lot
(a) of questions came up is it was guaranteed. With
(s) Staff and with conditions we're work - we will
(1o) continue to try to get that. There's a lot of
(11) things we're trying to get from the Water District
(12) at this point, and I think.itwill happen, but
(13) that's the reason it came off.
(14) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:. I'm having some concerns
(is) about that thing just kind of dangling out there
(16) with not really any relationship to the project. So
(17) that's why I asked the question.
(18) Commissioner Talesfore. Excuse me, I'm
(19) sorry, Quintana. Sorry.
(2o) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I guess I changed
(21) my name.
(22) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I'm sorry, I'm -
(23) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: That's okay. Two
(24) questions. Actually, three. One is related to the
(2s) issue of easements from the Water District for the
Page 30
(1) alternate trail site and for the connection from the
(2) trail to the green space where the tot lot used to
(3) be.
(4) JOHN SHENK: Yes.
(5) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Has the - do you
(s) have agreements with the water company for easements
(7) over their portion of that area?
(e) JOHN SHENK: We - we do not have
(9) easements. We've had discussions with them. There
(io) are - don't seem to be any issues with gaining
(11) access - I now have a pointer, but at where the old
(12) tot lot was, that access that we intend to be
(13) private or for the use of the occupants, and
(14) residents of the site, on the other side, no issues
(15) there, either, with gaining access to the creek
(16) trail from that corner of our site.
(17) The issue with them that's been
(is) outstanding is the use of our easement over their
(19) property as a public access point or extension of
(2o) the creek trail.
(21) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. And my
(22) other question relates to the - you removed some
(23) information from one of the drawings as to the mix
(24) of the apartments and sizes, but it hasn't been
(25) replaced. So is there - have you determined the
)ECEMBER 10, 2003 MAXIM)
Page 31
(1) mix, or is that still up for refinement?
(2) JOHN SHENK: The mb(is known. I'm trying
(3) to think R I have a sheet. I don't know If you
(4) have a sheet.
(6) (inaudible discussion.)
(5) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Oh, is it? You
(7) may be right (inaudible).
'(s) JOHN SHENK: What had happened last time,
(9) it was - is that it was incorrect. We had left in
(io) all of the - it Was the market rate housing and the
(i i) affordable housing is different sizes as if it were
(12) the, I'll call it the segregated project, that was
(13) the - the concept that was floated early on. And
(14) that had remained. And maybe in trying to clean
(15) that up, it came off, but the okay. It is not
(16) there. It is known, because every unit Is - is
(17) known to be either a studio, a one bedroom, two
(is) bedroom or three bedroom unit
(19) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. So It's
(2o) only the BMP mb( that isn't determined yet?
(21) JOHN'SHENK It is, because it would be
(22) representative of the whole. It would be - you
(23) know, if we had a hundred one bedrooms -
(24) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. So itwould
(25) be a percent -
Page 32
(1) JOHN SHENK: A percent of those would be
(2) the one bedrooms. So it would be - correct. And
(3) the same size. The same units.
(4) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yeah, okay.
(s) 'Cause I thought I remembered it from the last,
(s) meeting that you had said that was still to be
(7) determined.
(s) JOHN SHENK: They will -
(9) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: So that's a
(1o) clarification.
(11) JOHN SHENK: - be the same units, the
(1'2) same mix of market rate units will be represented as
(13) affordable units.
(14) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Thank you.
(15) JOHN SHENK: Sure.
(16) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Any other questions?
(17) Thank you, Mr. Shenk. I appreciate your time.
(18) JOHN SHENK: Thank you very much.
(is) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: At this point I'm going
(2o) to close the public hearing, return this to the
(21) Commission for questions of Staff or a motion.
(22) Tonight, folks, our charge is to make a
(23) recommendation to the Town Council, along with
(24) recommendation - with our thoughts. Commissioner
(25) Micciche.
Page 29 to Page 32 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA PUBLIC HEARING - DECEMBER 10, 2003
Page 33
(1) COMMISSIONER MICCiCHE: First I'm going to
(2) give some comments, then follow It with a motion.
(3) At the previous hearing I was the only
(4) Commissioner present who voted no on returning this
(s) application for redesign at that time, and I will
(6) give my reasons why.
(7) 1 believe the approved project is
(a) significantly more intense than the modified
(9) project. And the reduction and offers square
(1 o) footage increase in affordable housing and the
(11) increase in open area makes the modified project
(12) significantly better. I refer to Exhibit D in the
(13) October 22nd Staff Report and found the following to
(14) support this belief.
(15) First, the approved project had 288,000
(16) square feet of office space and 158,000 square feet
(17) of residential area, for a total of 446,000 square
(19) feet. The modified project has 120,000 square feet
(19) of office space and 302,000 square feet of
(2o) residential space, for a total of 420,000 square
(21) feet, or a net reduction of 26,000 feet
(22) collectively. .
(23) Secondly, the approved project had 853
(24) employees in the office area and 295 residents, for
(25) a total of 1,112 persons who could also potentially
Page 34
(1) have automobiles coming and leaving at the critical
(2) times. And the majority of them it would be at the
(3) peak traffic, considering it was the
(4) R&D operation.
(s) The modified project has 355 employees.
(6) That's a reduction of some 600 - of 500. And 566
(7) residents, for a total of 921 people who would have
(s) automobiles leaving and entering the site, fora
(9) reduction of 191 vehicles and with significantly
(io) less coming in and out because of the office
(11) reduction.
(12) Additionally, the modified project has
(13) 4,000 square feet more of landscaping and no
(14) increase in paving area. And lastly, the approved
(15) project had 64,300 square feet of usable public open
(16) space, and the modified project has 172,000 square
(17) feet of usable public space, or a net increase of
(18) 100,000 square feet.
(19) 1 also believe it still meets all the
(2o) elements of the General Plan that we stated when we
(21) first recommended the approved project to the Town
(22) Council.
(23) However, having said all that, I also
(24) believe that the modified project has reduced
(2s) community benefits. And let me explain why. .
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
Page 35
(t) The approved project had 33 percent of the
(2) market rate units as BMP units, 13 percent over the
(3) required amount, which was a significant community
(4) benefit as I saw it. The modified project has the
(5) minimum required of 20 percent, which provides no
(6) additional community benefit.
(7) 1 believe a way should be found to
(a) approach the same benefit percentage as they had in
(9) the approved project. Additionally, I would expect,
(1o) after hearing all the issues involved in the Los
(1 i) Gatos sports area - and I call it a sports area,
(12) 'cause I'm not prone to just soccer alone. I think
(13) football needs help, baseball needs help, so soccer
(14) -doesn't stick out there individually to me at all -
(1s) that they should commit to using the Sobrato
(16) resources and influences to do something about it.
(17) And I believe that commitment should be a strong
(1E) commitment and, If possible, a proposal with
(19) milestones and proposed action items.
(2o) I'm not asking for your land or money.
(21) I'm asking you to get involved and use your power to
(22) do something.
(23) For these reasons, I make a motion to
(24) recommend to the Town Council that we approve the
(25) planned development application, PD-03-1, which
Page 36
(1) modes the approved PD on property zoned CM:PD,
(2) APN 42432068, by requesting the applicant to, one,
(3) add additional BMP units and, two, make a strong
(4) commitment to use the power, resources and influence
(s) of the Sobrato Corporation to bring a sports center
(6) to Los Gatos that can help accommodate not only
(7) soccer, but football and baseball needs of the
(a) community.
(9) 1 would also ask them to modify the route
(io) of the shuttle they propose to include stops at the
(11) Safeway shopping center on Winchester Avenue near
(12) the VTA station and the Victoria Station strip mall
(13) to accommodate the residents and possibly decrease
(14) the amount of car trips that are there.
(15) If I get a second, I welcome my fellow
(16) Commissioners to add whatever they like as a request
(17) of the Town Council.
(18) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. There's a motion
(19) on the floor. Do we have a second? Not seeing
(2o) anybody jumping in for a second, so I guess motion
(21) dies for lack of second. Thank you, Commissioner
(22) Micciche.
(23) Commissioner Quintana, do you have
(24) comments, motion? Questions of Staff?
(25) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I have - I have
(408) 920-0222
Page 33 to Page 36
BSA _ _ PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 10, 2003
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a)
m
(a)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(2a)
(25)
Page 37
comments. I don't know whether you'd prefer to have
a motion on the floor before the comments or the
comments before the motion. Whatever your pleasure
is.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Actually, I'd prefera
motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Is there a motion coming
on the floor, Commissioner Burke? Do you have a
motion?
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay. I'm going to
make a motion to send PD application PD-03-1 to the
Town Council with the recommendation against
approving this revised plan. I'm also going to make
a recommendation against certifying or approving the
Environmentai Impact Report addendum, and I'll
explain that why.
My reasons for not wanting to recommend
this plan is that I do not feel the quality of life
for the residences of this new project will be as
good as the old project. I felt the old project at
least gave a fair percentage of the - of the - the
residents creek views, or they weren't looking right
back upon other apartment buildings.
I also feel that the ElR - environment -
Page 38
(1) the addendum to the Environmental Impact Report did
(2) not adequately address what effects the additional
(3) resident from the 300 - or 295 dwelling units would
(4) have on recreational activities in the Town. Not to
(s) say Sobrato has a responsibility to necessarily
(s) provide those, but we ought to address what this is.
(7) It may be a minor thing, but we really don't talk
(a) about it.
(9) But as part of this motion, I would also
(1o) make a recommendation that the Town Council grant an
(11) extension to the vesting of the original project and
(12) send this project back to the Planning Commission
(13) for us to work with it. Why? Because I think this
(14) project can be saved and made a lot better.
(15) How would we do that? Ono, is I think we
(is) need more green space on the project. Now, they
(17) talked about the amount of open space that was
(is) walkways, private patios. Well, you're going to
(19) have 295 dwelling units. You need a little more
(2o) lawn for the kids to play on. I mean, that's the
(21) thing I'm looking at there. You know; and that can
(22) be achieved by changing the architecture, maybe
(23) making the _ the apartment buildings taller by
(24) the - by the R&D so there's less footprint. I'm
(2s) not saying reduce the number of units. I just think
XMAX(1
Page 39
(i) we need more green space in my opinion.
(2) 1 also think we need to do something with
(3) the architecture in general. I'm not a - a student
(4) of architecture or architectural history, but If I
(s) go back to style; this - this is a very imposing
(s) style, and I assume that was the - the intent of it
(7) back when it was developed. And I think we need
(a) something that's much less imposing If Its going to
(9) be the biggest project we have going in Los Gatos,
(to) something that blends in better with nature and
(11) stands out less:
(12) 1 also think we need to solve some of
(13) these, prob.- parking issues, and I don't know if
(14) that's - I know there's - there's all sorts of
(1s) problems with undergrounding, but I think there's
(1s) still too many parking issues to send this forward.
(17) And the final thing I think this thing
(18) needs is a small= and the operative word is small,
(1s) retail component. This place with the shuttle is
(2o) going to be the de facto Light Rail station, transit
(21) station for the next five, ten, maybe even twenty
(22) years. Maybe forever. We never may - we may never
(23) get that extension. And one of the things, as
(24) somebody who tries to take Light Rail, it's realty
(25) nice when there's a convenience store, I can go in
Page 40
(1) and buy a magazine, oh, 1 forgot my comb; I need
(2) some Kleenex, and i can buy that. That is a big
(3) amenity.
(4) It's also an amenity that you want to have
(5) if you're going to have a pedestrian friendly
(6) apartment complex. People aren't going to want
M their kids walking across Winchester Boulevard to go
(s) to Vasona Station to go to, let's say a 7-Eleven,
(9) not that it would be necessarily a 7-Eleven, but
(1o) that - also, the merchants across the street have
(11) said well, there's not the traffic. Well, if you're
(12) driving down Winchester, you're not going to make a
(13) left and a U-turn and another left or whatever to
(14) make a quick stop at a convenience store if you're
(15) going northbound. You're going to stop at a place
(16) that's on the right side. So I think that - you
(17) know, I'm only talking five, 6,000 square feet. I
(18) think you'd have that. You might have something
(19) like a Los Gatos Coffee Roasting Company, maybe a
(2o) Jamba. Juice, but something that people that are
(21) going to take transit and live in the apartment, dry
(22) cleaners, are going to want. It's going to make ft
(23) a better project.
(24) I'm not trying to punish the developer,
(25) I'm trying to make a better project for everybody.
Page 37 to Page 40 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
8SA PUBLIC HEARING - [
Page 41
(1) And If the Council agrees with these ideas, I would
(2) request that they send this back to the Planning
(3) Commission with Instructions both to Planning
(4) Commission and the applicant. And I'm not being
(s) critical of anybody's actions, but I'm -
(s) (inaudible) work together in good faith. That means
(7) study sessions where we come in with a blank page.
(a) We don't come up with the design, and we try to
(g) tweak the trim, the windows, whatever. We say how
(io) are we going to make this work.
(11) So that's where I think this should go. I
(12) don't want to force the applicant to build the old
(13) project, 'cause they're running out of time. That's
(14) why I think they need the extension. But If the '
(is) Town Council does go ahead to approve this PD, I'm
(1s) going to ask one thing, and that is something that
(17) I've always been uncomfortable with this because.
(1 a) I've never seen specific findings, so if the Town
(19) Council does approve the new PD, please make a
(2o) specific finding on the height.
(21) As somebody who's worked on General Plan,
(22) General Plan limit is 35 feet in this area. I know
(23) there are a lot of ways. But I'd like a specific
(24) finding just so when we reference this, we can know
(25) how it was - how things like this should get
Page 42
(1) approved, on how this PD is consistent with that
(2) And If the applicant decides to go,
(3) instead of waiting to go ahead with the first
(4) project, let me just give you the advance - you
(s) know, the offsetting advantages to that. One is
(a) more jobs. The person from Santa Clara County
(7) Manufacturing Association that spoke a couple
(a) meetings ago made the comment Los Gatos is very job
(s) poor. Very difficult to live - afford to live in
(lo) Los Gatos if you work in Los Gatos unless you're a
(11) lawyer, a doctor or some other self-employed.
(12) There's not necessarily a lot of, you know, high
(13) paying, high tech jobs.
(14) And also,imagine if we had had a facility
(1s) where Metrocom could have stayed in Los Gatos. You
(16) know, they might still be around. They might be
(17) doing a wonderful job. A place for Netflix, another
(18) homegrown start-up company. Nice facility for them
(19) to locate. So the original project wouldn't be all
(20) that bad in - in that respect.
(21) Also - and I'm speculating, but the
(22) other - the original project looked like it
(23) probably had lower overall rent. You know, I know
(24) rents have not been set, but if I just looked at the
(25) project, the combination of BMP, the no townhomes,
)ECEI1 SER 10, 200.3 XMAx(11/11)
Page 43
(1) I'm going to guess that probably the - the rent on
(2) the average was lower.
(3) And the final thing is less impact on
(4) services. Residents impact services, schools,
(s) parks, more than employees do. So that's one
(a) advantage that I think the original project had If
m the applicant went ahead to do it.
(e) And my final thought on this is I'm
(g) thinking for the people who are going to live in
(1o) this project, I think it's really important that
(11) they be able to tell that they live in Los Gatos
(12) without looking at the address on their mail. And 1
(13) don't see that with this project Thank you.
(14) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. We have a motion
(1s) on the floor. Do we have a second for this motion?
(16) Commissioner Quintana.
(17) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I'll second.
(18) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Is there any
(1g) Commissioners that would like to add, 'cause I'd
(20) like Council to have benefit of our thoughts -
(21) . COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Can i -
(22) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana.
(23) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - make some
(24) comments?
(2s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Please.
Page 44
(1) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I agree with most
(2) of what Commissioner Burke has said, although 1 have
(3) a slightly different way of approaching it, so I'd
(4) like to go through that.
(5) The first thing I did was look at the
(6) consensus from the Council study session on this to
(7) see how the project meets those expectations, and .
(a) there were six different things.
(g) The Council felt that it was moving in the
(io) right direction, that the density and third story
(ii) elements should be carefully evaluated. To me, 1
(12) agree that it was moving in the right direction.
(13) That usually means that it still needs some, I would
(14) say, significant tweaking. And I don't think that
(16) the - the density and the third story elements have
(16) been carefully evaluated by the applicant. I think
(17) the Commission has indicated that they probably need
(ia) to have further work.
(19) The Commission - excuse me, the Council
(2o) indicated that ft was important that the community
(21) understood what this project was about. And they
(22) requested story poles at the highest points and at,
(23) 1 believe, some of the corners or the most visible
(24) areas. The story poles were placed by balloons,
(2s) which was a good idea, 'cause it was certainty a
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 41 to Page 44
BSA PUBLIC HEARING - I
Page 45
(1) more cost effective way of doing it• Unfortunately,
(2) the timing was such that I think a lot of people -
(3) and this was testified to in the last hearing -
(4) thought It was advertising the pumpkin patch.
(5) In addition, the Council asked that the
(s) building footprints be marked; and this was also.
(7) requested from the Commission in the October
(a) meeting. The footprints were not marked. Only the
(s) comers of the building were marked, and it was
(io) really difficult to picture exactly what was going
(i1) on.
(12) They also asked for artist rendering on
(13) the site, which didn't happen. I think the
(14) Commission also asked for that. And a high quality
(15) model, which we did get, but not until the second
(16) meeting.
(17) In the review process, the Council was
(ia) generally supportive of expediting the review
(ig) process, provided all the necessary analysis was
(2o) done; and l think there could be some question about
(21) whether that in fact has occurred; but they also
(2z) indicated that the majority supported review of"
(23) architecture and site plans by DRC and the
(24) Consulting Architect, provided that the PD plans
(25) have enough architectural detail, architectural
Page 46
(1) excellence of the approved project is retained, and
(2) there are not too many loose ends. And I would say
(3) on that, that the - when I look at this project; 1
(4) see that there are three different projects. The
(5) architectural style has been retained beautifully in
(s) the office building, somewhat less in the apartment
(7) building and, in my opinion, not really at all in
(a) the townhouses.
(9) And the quality of the design has
(io) decreased as `we moved away from Winchester
(11) Boulevard. So t don't believe that the architecture
(12) has maintained the same excellence in design as the
(13) original project.
(14) And I think there still are many loose
(is) ends, as the request from the Planning Commission in
(is) the last two meetings indicates.
(17)The Council was supportive of low and very
(ia) low income housing, and but preferred to see them
(19) integrated into the project. The affordable housing
(2o) has been integrated into the project, but it has not
(21) incorporated any very low housing income, and the
(22) percentage has - has dropped. And then also,
(23) generally - so I don't think that has been it's
(24) been met partially, but not totally.
(25) And then the Council also was favorable
)ECEMBER 10, 2003 xMAX(12J12)
Page 47
(1), about the land use mix, And I think.that the
(2) Commission has indicated that it is also supportive
(3) of the, land use mix, but not at the detriment; or.
(4) sacrifice of good site design: And I think that's
(s) the whole issue on on this project is site
(s) design.
m We have a letter from an architect in Town
(a) that talks to that, and I'd just like to read a-
(9) little bit of it, because I think it summarizes it
(1o) well. The - the buildings are fine. The problem
(11) with them is that while individually acceptable,
(12) they as a group are not organized by an overriding
(13) site plan concept
(14) Rather - excuse me. The buildings, much
(15) like our historic downtown, should define and shape
(1a) the outdoor communal areas. And essentially saying
(17) thatthat - that hasn't happened. That the site
(1a) design needed to start with a concept and - and
(19) work from there.,) would agree with that I think
(2o) there are many deficiencies in the current site
(21) design, the amount of open space, the relationship
(22) of the open space to the various activities to the
(23) buildings themselves in relationship to the mass and
(24) scale of the buildings.
(25) 1 think that it feels - when I look at
Page 48
(i) It, I get two reactions: One, that the wagons have
(2) circled for protection. And secondly, that,there's
(3) been a train wreck the way the buildings have
(4) been - sorry about that.
(5) 1- gosh, I have so many comments, but
(s) those are basically my - my - my major comments.
(7) f know we - I - if - If I look at this project on
(s) its own merit, not comparing it to the original
(s) approved project, it does not.stand up from a site
(io) design standpoint, and it doesn't stand 'up in part
(11) on an architectural design, Not architectural
(12) style well, the architectural style hasn't been
(13) changed, but when you change footprints and
(14) groupings of buildings and massing of buildings, you
(is) do change architecture, and I don't think the
(16) apartment element of it has the same degree of
(17) excellence that the original did.
(1a) And if I look at it in comparison to the
(19) existing project or approved project, that has
(2o) problems, too, but I believe the architecture was
(21) better and on balance. Overall, I think they were
(22) about equal.
(23)' In terms of the intensity, we talked about
(24) intensity and density. The applicant has indicated
(25) that the intensity of the development has gone down.
Page 45 to Page 48 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA PUBLIC HEARING - C
Page 49
(1) In one sense that's true. The impacts of the
(2) development have gone down slightly with the traffic
(3) and the number of people on site, but the intensity
(4) of the building on the site I don't think has
(s) decreased. In some ways, the apartment part of it
(6) seems more massive and more closed in to me and,
(7) therefore, more intense.
(e) And I could go on forever I think, but I
(9) don't think everybody wants me to do that, so -
(10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you.
(11) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: But also I -
(12) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS One more.
(13) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - haveto make
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
m
(e)
(9)
(10)
(it)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(1 a)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
one more comment - two more comments.
One is with regard to the General Plan,
which Commissioner Burke raised. I have two other
items to add to my concern with the General Plan.
Not the density, because the Staff Report, either
this time or last time, clearly indicated that the
General Plan density could go up if there was BMP
units, that type of addition. But with its
conformance with the General Plan goals and policies
in the land use section under intensity of land use.
And secondly, I - I agree with Commissioner Burke's
concern about the General Plan height limits. While
Page 50
the PD zoning will, I believe, allows you to exceed
the zoning requirements, it doesn't allow you to
exceed the - or to violate the General Plan, and a
portion of the site is General Planned for
commercial, which has it in the General Plan a
maximum height limit of 35 feet.
And one other thing in terms of the
architecture and site plan. I spent a lot of time
looking at the civil plans, because 1 did not
remember or understand the concept of the open
podium from the first plan. And indeed, I found
that in one small section - well, not one small
section - across the Winchester frontage, there was
about two feet. It's not reflected well in the
cross sections on C-2 of the approved plans, but if
you have very good eyes and a good magnifying glass,
you can read it from our reduced plans from the
elevations on the civil plans, C-1.
The modified project has much more open
space between the grade and the podium, ranging from
three feet to eleven feet that's from curb, and If
you add in the three or four feet of berming that
you can probably make, you're still going to wind up
with bigger openings over a much greater area of the
site. The drawings on C-2 of the approved project
IECEMBER 10, 2005 XMAx(13113)
Page 51
(1) don't show - I mean, they do show that the majority
(2) of the podium has been bermed with the exception of
(3) where the entrances are and along Winchester.
(4) Thank you for your forbearance.
(s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you, Commissioner
(e) Quintana. Is that it?
(n COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Well, I have more
(6) comments -
(9) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Do you have another -
(1a) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - but I'll let
(11) other people -
(12) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you, appreciate
(13) that.
(14) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I have
(15) recommendations.
(16).. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissioner
(17) Micciche, do you have anything to add? Okay.
(1a) Anybody else? Commissioner Talesfore.
(19) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay. I'm going
(2o) to make this very short. Although I - I appreciate
(21) some of the refinements that you tried to address,
(22) its clear that I don't think that our - the intent
(23) that we -with which we made the directions given
(24) to you in our October and November meetings, there
(2s) were a list of ten, were adequately addressed. And
Page 52
(1) so because of that, those were directions that we
(2) thought would make this a better project, and when 1
(3) consider that I think I'm working with a community
(4) partner, 1 really was hoping that we wouldn't see
(5) just refinements, but I would have something in
(6) front of me that 1 could really get my hands on and
(7) say yeah, this is great, we're going somewhere,
(a) because I want to save this project, too. It's
(9) important that we work together on it.
(1o) But I can't recommend this unless I see
(11) more movement in the area of our direction. So
(12) because of this and my pledge to uphold the General
(1m) Plan, I - I won't be - I will be supporting
(14) Commissioner Burke's motion tonight, with the
(15) following - can I add - I'd like to add those now.
(16) That there would be no phasing. Projects
(17) are approved for a certain time in which they are
(1a) usually - it is usually an appropriate time, and if
(19) the time changes, then so should the project.
(2o) And that, of course, the BMP units would
(21) be located throughout the project. I think we
(22) talked about that before.
(23) And bicycle racks included, and I think
(24) that was mentioned maybe another time, but I wanted
(25) to make sure it was in.
AGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 49 to Page 52
BSA - PUBLIC HEARING - I
Page 53
(1) And that the community benefit of the
(2) the bus between the project and Campbell and also
(3) with Commissioner's Micciche's suggestion of on
(4) to - is it the Safeway mall? Winchester Boulevard.
(5) That also be included.
(6) And I can't really comment on the tot lot,°
M because - oh, (inaudible) was there another place
(a) that you wanted to it to go to besides Winchester?
(s) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible.)
(10) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: And Victoria
(11) Station. I can't really -
(12) A VOICE: _ (Inaudible.)
(13) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Vasona, okay. I
(14) know you did. Vasona Station, okay.
(15) And I can't really comment on the tot lot,
(16) although I was glad to see it moved. I think it is
(17) looking better, but I'd like to have that reviewed
(1a) by somebody that's more of an expert in that area of
(19) security of the project. But I like that movement,
(2o) thank you.
(21) And then the buildings running parallel to
(22) the creek. I still would like to see them
(23) eliminated. I know that If we did, we would reduce
(24) it - the project by 45 units, however, I think -
(25) still think you would get about 30 units an acre.
Page 54
(1) So please consider that.
(2) Let's see. Then access to the creek and
(3) more direct access to the transit hubs from the
(4) apartments to be incorporated into the final design.
(5) And the site plan shall be reviewed by an
(6) expert in planning, but I think we talked about that
(n before, too.
(a) Other than that, I'd like to have you look
(s) at eliminating that tandem parking. I just think
(1o) that's asking for some fender benders. I don't know
(i 1) how we do that, but we'll work on that maybe.
(12) And then also there was the whole issue of
(13) the apartments on the flood plain. Is that
(14) something that we - did we talk about that?
(1s) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I was going to
(16) discuss that'a little bit.
(17) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Oh, you were?
(1e) Oh, okay. l just wanted us to make sure we
(19) understood that - that the apartments along that
(2o) creek, although they're approved to be taller, would
(21) not be taller because of the - you know what I'm
(22) saying? We would have to - however I'm saying
(23) it - okay, I'm not an engineer. Refer to Kevin on
(24) that.
(25) And I think that's it for now. Thank you.
)ECEMBER 10, 2003 XMAX(14114)
Page 55
(1). CHAIRMANDUBOIS: Okay. Thank you. I'm
(2) going to add a couple comments. Can I add a couple
(3) comments before you do?
(4) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yeah, but I think
(5) Commissioner Talesfore added things that she wanted
(6) added to the motion.
(7) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Oh, as partof the
(6) motion? Okay, then we need part of the second. We
(9) need both the maker and the seconder to either
(1o) concur or not.
(11) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Sure.
(12) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Maker concurs.
(13) Seconder?
(14) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Seconder would
(15) qualify that the applicant should work with VTAto
(16) include the additional stops in the shuttle vans,
(17) since VTA is going to be partner in this, or at
(1 a) least that's my understanding.
(19) And in addition, on the first Item, which
(2o) was that - let's see, what was it? That the BMP
(21) units would be located throughout the project,
(22) clarifying also that they're not going to be, as the
(23) applicant has indicated, will not be specifically
(24) specifically allocated to separate locations, but
(2s) would be on a rotating basis and - and would be in
Page 56
(i) proportion to the total number of apartments.
(2) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Do we have-
(s) does the maker on this concur?
(4) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Does the, yeah,
(5) maker of it concur?
(6) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Well, I'm a little
(7) confused, because my - the fact that my motion was
(9) a recommendation against- '
(s) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yeah.
(10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: (inaudible.)
(11) COMMISSIONER BURKE: - I don't know how
(12) we can be adding -
(13) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: That's true.
(14) COMMISSIONER BURKE: -these
(15) conditions - yeah, to a denial.
(16) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: You're right.
(17) You're right. These could be just comments -
(18) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commentsforthe
(19) Council.
(2o) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - added forthe
(21) Council's consideration If they choose to proceed
(22) with the project,
(23) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Correct.
(24) COMMISSIONERTALESFORE: Well,would
(25) this -
Page 53 to Page 56 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
8SA PUSUC HEARING - DECEMBER 10, 2003 yaw (15MS)
Page 57 Page 59
(1) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana I (1) that.
(2) still has the floor. Okay. Commissioner
(3) Talesfore -
(4) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I think -
(s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: - do you have a
(e) comment? Are you through?
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yeah, I think-
(a> CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay.
(9) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - for- forthe
(io) time being. I have more comments to make, but on
(11) this.
(12) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: So-
(13) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Talesfore.
(14) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: [think-l-
(15) just to explain, if I understand Commissioner Burke
(16) correctly, he has - he's essentially - his motion,
(1) which I seconded, is essentially to not recommend
(1 a) the adoption of this plan and, however, you - there
(19) are things in your motion that if they do, then you
(2o) would like to see, so 1 think these could be part of
(21) that part of the motion.
(22) COMMISSIONER BURKE: If they can be added
(23) to the motion in such that these are the things that
(24) we think would improve the project, I'm more than
(2s) happy to. I just don't want to cloud the motion.
Page 58
(1) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay.
(2) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I think the goal here is
(3) to educate the Council as to what we're thinking -
(4) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Right.
(s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: -that's what we're
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
saying. So they're comments. Am I interpreting
this -
MR. LORTZ: Yes. In terms of the
formality of the motion, though, we have a motion.
We have a second. If you intend to have some
specific recommendations to the Council, please make
them as clear as possible and concise so the Council
understands that's a recommendation. If they're
just general comments, they're going to - the
Council's going to be getting averbatim transcript
of the meeting, so they will hear everything. They
will also get a disk of the meeting.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: This is notan
addition to the motion at this point, but it's
further comments. The applicant has asked us to
make specific recommendations to the motion - to
consider for amending of the - of the project that
they're proposing. And I have two problems with
(2) One Is that we as a Commission try very
(3) hard not to micro manage and design projects. And
(4) it seems like that's what you're asking us to do.
(s) But even more important than that, by essentially
(8) having communicated to us that you're willing to
m look at changes to the project, but primarily only
(a) if they don't involve a change in density or a
(9) change in intensity or any major site plan changes,
(io) by focusing on specific details, you're - It's -
(11) it's - let me use this word, and I can't pronounce
(12) it very well, obfuscating, the - some of the major
(13) issues with the project, which are that the, as I
(14) think the Commission indicated last hearing, we have
(15) no problem with the density per se, as long as
(16) maintaining that density does not sacrifice a good
(17) site plan, and the whole focus of my opinion needs
(1 a) to be on the site plan.
(19) And 1 could make speck recommendations,
(2o) but I have another statement that I - I - or
(21) request that I would like to make. I think that -
(22) this goes to Commissioner Talesfore's comment about
(23) the flood plain. I also spent a lot of time looking
(24) at the plans and trying to figure out where the
(25) flood plain was, and I spoke with Fletcher from
Page 60
(1) Public Works, and he indicated that the flood plain
(2) elevation runs from about 260 to about 258 on the
(3) project.
(4) So that there apparently is some room to
(s) lower the elevation of the townhouses, but I don't
(e) think that can be done as an isolated thing. It
(7 affects the entire site plan, as do many of the
(a) other things that the Commission had requested. It
(9) can't be looked at as individual. They all fit
(i o) together as a whole and have to be integrated as a
(11) whole.
(12) So I would - I'm going to ask that before
(13) this goes to Council, that several things be
(14) included with the packet to Council so they can
(is) understand better the flood plain - a flood plain
(16) map and how it relates to the existing project.
(17) Some clarification drawings of the approved plan in
(18) terms of the podium and the berming as approved in
(19) the plan. I could only find that one instance of
(2o) two feet differential in the podium exposure.
(21) And the third thing was some drawings that
(22) are legible and that have dimensions on them, both
(23) on the elevations and on the typical apartments so
(24) that you can really see what we're getting, we can
(25) see in reduced sets what the distance of the green
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 57 to Page 60
BSA PUBLIC HEARING - [
Page 61
(1) space is, all of that kind of thing, 'cause it's
(2) very, very difficult on these drawings, and these
(3) drawings, on the elevations don't Indicate the
(4) existing elevation versus the proposed elevation,
(s) and ifs difficult to figure out how the heights
(s) were determined. When the padding and elevation
(n changed, did the height of the building change, or
(a) did it stay the same, but it seems bigger or smaller
(9) because the - the finished grade is higher or
(1o) lower? Its hard to figure out from these drawings,
(i 1) and I think those are all important things to be
(12) clear.
(13) And so I think I'm going to make that a
(14) part of the motion, if I May.
(15) COMMISSIONER BURKE: I think it's always
(1s) important-to have clear drawings, sure.
(17) COMMISSIONER QU.INTANA Thank you.
(18) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. So much has been
(19) said. I will keep mine very, very brief.
(2o) in the memo of August 8th, regarding a
(21) summary of the Council's consensus, it said Council
(22) asked that the residential density be carefully
(23) reviewed through our process. Also, the density of
(24) the third story elements should be carefully
(25) evaluated. Both of those have been continuing
Page 62
(1) themes that we have been hitting on for three
(2) meetings. I think they still need work, and I would
(s) ask the Council to - to give us some clarification
(4) what they mean on density.
(5) -And I thought the model that you folks did
(6) was wonderful. And the model for me, however,
M showed that the density created an intensity in this
(a) design that could create some problems for the
(9) resident. And I - I -1'm really going to look
(1o) forward to whenever the security consultant reviews
(11) this thing, because I could see some potential
(12) problems with the way that density is there, and I'm
(13) looking forward to seeing how you're going to
(14) resolve those problems.
(15) In the last meeting, I reiterate - we.
(16) talked about removal of the third story elements.
(17) We talked about consider creating open space,
(18) recreation area, re-define the community benefit,
(19) and I think Commissioner Micciche did a good job
(2o) on - on asking that. And I think we do need to
(21) re-define what is the community benefit of this
(22) project, make it clear.
(23) And I would suggest that- I like
(24) Commissioner's Micciche's remark of extending the
(25) shuttle to the Safeway downtown, but I would give
IECEMBER 10, 2003 xMAX(16116)
Page 63
(1) you - I would say look at a lot of latitude there,
(2) because there's also one on Pollard that maybe
(3) that's a better one. I don't know. You know,
(4) what's the best for the resident there.
(s) And opening up view corridors. I mean,
(6) tonight was a - was a talk of trying.to do that,
M and thats - that's a start. And moving the tot
(a) lots, there's a start there, folks. Basically I
(9) think what this Commission is saying is we'd like to
(1o) keep working with you, and I'd ask the Council to
(11) send it back to us so that we can work on )L
(12) 1 think the problem, as. Commissioner Burke
(13) so eloquently put it, is that you guys are facing a
114) deadline, that makes you move;-; have to move
(1 s) forward on a time schedule, and if the Council could
(1 s) give you some relief on that, then we could all. sit
(17) down and breathe and get through this thing and make
(1 a) it work for us.
(19) So, okay, there is;a motion on ttie floor.
(2o) There's a second on the floor. And I'm going to
(21) call the question. I'm going to call the question.
(22) Commissioner Quintana, Is it really that -
(23) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA. I - I think for
(24) me this is an important thing to get on the record.
(25) With respect to the applicant's offer of
Page 64
(1) transferring BMP units to the Riviera site,1-, my
(2) recommendation to the Council would be not to do
(3) that, to leave the - the BMP units on the site
(4) where they're required.
(5) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. That's a comment.
(6) Okay. And I would also like to ask Staff to provide
(7) Council - I know you're going to provide verbatim
(9) minutes, would they be verbatim -verbatim minutes
(9) for all of the hearings that we've had, the last
(10) three hearings?
(14) MR. LORTZ: Yes, that's our tradition
(12) here.
(13) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you. Okay. Okay,
(14) I'm going to call the question. All those in favor
(15) of the motion, signify by saying aye.
(16) (Ayes.)
(1-1) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Opposed?
(18) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Nay.
(19) CHAIRMAN,DUBOIS: Motion carries four to
(2o) one, Commissioner Micciche dissenting.
(21) MR. LORTZ: Just for those people that are
(22) following this item, there will be a new public
(23) hearing that will be scheduled for the Town Council.
(24) This item is tentatively scheduled for the
(25) January 20th Town Council meeting, so if you're
Page 61 to Page 64 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
a_~. 3 = = P'USILIC HEARING - I
Page 65
(i) inclined to want to follow this, please check our
(2) web site, but we're - we're scheduling it for
(3) January 20th at this moment
(4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: We're going to take a
(5) five minute recess at this point.
(6) (Recess.)
M CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioners. Okay.
(a) We're ow moving into the topic of new public
(s) hearing . Item Number 3 on the agenda is i -495
(1o) Topping ay, Architecture and Site Appll on
(11) S-03-43, re uesting approval to demoli single
(12) family reside ce and construct a ne single family
(13) residence on roperty zoned R-1: . Is the applicant
(14) here? Please co e forward an dentify yourself.
(15) And when you g chance you'd fill - well,
(16) actually the appli we n't need a card on you,
(17) so - is that mike on?
(18) DAVID BRITT: o evening. Better?
(1s) David Britt with B Rowe, 108 North Santa Cruz
(2o) Avenue, Los G os. And the roject that we're
(21) presenting t tght is of tours a new residence, and
(22) it's locate man area that's pre minantiy County
(23) grope , but this - this parcel been annexed
(24) into a property.
(25) W worked really closely with the Tow
Page 66
(1) Staff with the 'design, as - as well as the
(2) Co suiting Archftect It is a la rge home, and
(3) that why it's here tonight. It's not the largest
(a) home the neighborhood. We don't feel ' the '
(s) largest h me in the neighborhood, be se there are
(6) some con iderably larger homes in :h /County
(7) jurisdiction f the area but of tours th is is one
(a) of the first To n parcels in that n ' hborhood. So
(9) obviously, this roject has bee designed within the.
(io) Town guidelines nd uses all f the design
(11) guidelines adopte by the wn.
(12) We have made mod tali ns throughout the
(13) process - design pro s. Probably the most
(14) significant, the front p r element, which was
(15) recommended to u by th Consulting Architect. And
(16) I think if you look t his rep , he felt that
(17) the - the house very well esigned, and if we
(18) included this ant porch eleme that the house
(19) would be c mpatibie with the adj ent one-story
(2o) resident .
(21) So tha about all i can talk about on
(22) the sign aspect of the project. I'd be happy to
(23) a wer any questions regarding the design, and 1
(24) now my client, Mr. Khani, would like to speak as
(25) well.
)5CEMBER 10, 2003 xrax(17n7
Page 67
(i) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Yeah, that's
(2) pr ably a good time If Mr. Khan[ would like to
(3) sp at this point Please identify yours If for
(4) the ord, if you would, Mr. Khan].
(5) ALI ANI: My name is All K 16495
(6) Tapping ay. David covered pr much good -good
M summatio boutthe design an at the process that
(a) took place. I like to realty me on about
(8) neighborhood d - and our ation.
(1o) We - we have IN In the n ghborhood
(11) for six years, estab hed good relationship,
(12) friendship with the ne h ors. Throughout this
(13) process, we were clos . orking relationship with our
(14) neighbors in terms o des nand what we were doing,
(15) and I wantto take is cppo nity and thank three
(16) closest neighbo that are im diate neighbors here
(17) in our support' the audience h e.
(18) And what - er design was corn ed,
(is) between m self and my wife, we too the time to
(2o) to go to homes in the neighborhoo - on the
(21) Hilow d Topping, pretty much covere everysingle
(22) hom sat down and showed them the design and got
(23) their eedback, and they were - they were kind
(24) eno gh to - to sign the petition in terns of the
(25) supportfor the project
Page 68
(i) We - we also have looked at the
(2) neighborhood in terms of the mass or size. Maybe
(3) im ediate -immediate houses next door, or they are
(4) not ig homes only because they were - they re
(5) built any years ago, and also it's like a Cc ty
(6) jurisdi on in the past, and now area - th
M neighbo ood in particularis in transfti , and
(s) we - and a seen a lot of homes ar eing beh.
(9) In fact, right ow on Hilow, about 0.
(io) feet away fro us, there are two omes are being -
(11) well, one is bein built, and on just got approval
(12) by the Town. Only ecause ey are right next to
(13) the big home they g the proval pretty easily.
(14) So we feel that - we fe at even
(is) though the neighbor ex next door, they are not
(16) big homes, but very c se . In fact, La Chiquita
(17) has some homes o r 4,500 uare foot, which, if you
(18) stand in our bac rd, you will a the homes very
(19) clearly as far as a mass and so rth.
(20) So with those oughts, I hope that -
(21) we - we be le to ask you folks to - t vote in
(22) favor for th' project and let us to move n. Thank
(23) You.
(24) CHAIRMAN DUBOiS: Thank you, Mr. Khan!.
(25) Members of Commission, do you have any questions for
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 65 to Page 68
t -
J. PHILIP. Di NAPOLI . ~
JAN 141 Zc~)Oy
U`y ?i .F L06 GA.TU°
January 14., 2004
Bud Lortz
Planning Director
City of Los Gatos Via email
Dear Mr. Lortz:
I am writing to again ask for your support for the Sobrato project in. Los Gatos,
including the revised plan for Los Gatos Gateway.
This project will enhance the area with high-quality buildings, better
transportation, more taxes for the city and schools, an increase in both temporary
and permanent jobs,, and much needed quality housing.
I urge your support.
cerely,
J. aPhillipDiNapoli
17986 Foster Road
Los Gatos, CA 95030
99 ALMADEN BOULEVARD. SUITE 565, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 951 13 • (408) 998.2460 • FAX (408) 998.2404
Attachment 4
CHARLES J. TOENISKOETTER
26570 FIRHAVEN LANE
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 93030
Mayor Steve Glickman
Town of Los Gatos
Town Hall
110 E. Main.St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
January12, 2004
Dear Mayor Glickman and Los Gatos City Council,
The approved plan for Los Gatos Gateway constitutes a good project for the site, for
the neighborhood and for Los Gatos. The amended plan is even better.
The office market has changed significantly in the more than three years since
Sobrato Development settled on a moc between commercial and residential. The
housing market, however, has remained fairly stable.
With a projected slow recovery, it could be 8. to 10 years before all the large
corporate campuses that have already been built are fully leased. Nobody knows
this portion of the office market better than, the Sobrato,Development Companies.
We concur with their assessment that smaller office buildings will better suit the
needs of Los Gatos while still providing the architectural presence required by the
major boulevard that they front.
Fortunately, the Sobrato Companies are as expert in rental housing as they are in
large corporate campuses. We can count on them to deliver a superior residential
project that meets a proven demand and provides numerous benefits for the
adjacennt neighborhoods and the town as a whole.
We urge you to approve the proposed amendment to Los Gatos Gateway.
Sincerely, ~--1
Chary J. Toeniskoetter
25570 Firhaven Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95033
Attachment 5
as
Edgar M. Thrift, Jr.
Gail Ross Thrift
140 Wilder Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030'r
January 12, 2004 J A IN 1 4' X({
(-)F LUG GATO ,
Mayor Steve Glickman PL,~^-'i"':G DE'PA;T-,V_
City of Los Gatos
Town Hall
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Sobrato Project Proposed For Winchester Boulevard
Dear Mayor Glickman,
We have been dismayed to read that the Sobrato project proposed for
Winchester Boulevard seemed to become bogged down in extraneous issues at the
Planning Commission level. We hope that you and the rest of the City Council
will be able to focus on the merits of Los Gatos Gateway and approve the
revised application.
The Town has approved a good mixed-use project for this site. The issue for
you to decide is whether this plan will be improved by increasing the number
of apartments and decreasing the amount of office space. The Sobratos make a
good case that it will be improved.
The proposed change in mix increases housing opportunities for more people who
work in Los Gatos but cannot afford to live here. It reduces by about 10% the
amount of automobile traffic. It encourages more people to commute via the
planned Vasona light rail station or initially by shuttle bus.
The office component remains sufficient to accommodate a significant
corporate user, possibly one generating sales as well as property taxes. In
fact, it may very well be that a corporate headquarters best suited for Los
Gatos would prefer the smaller buildings that are now proposed.
The larger issues of whether-Los Gatos should accept its responsibility to
provide additional market and affordable housing and accommodate the regional
transit network at Vasona Station have already been decided. We will. We are
fortunate that we have such an excellent site to accomplish it.
Sincerely,
Edgar M. Thrift, Jr. Gail Ross Thrift
Attachment 6
Suzanne Davis -
From:
To:
Date:
<VEAGA@comcast.net>
<plann in g@town.los-gatos.ca. us>
1/14104 10:26AM
Mayor Steve Glickman
Los Gatos Town Council
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
January 14
Dear Mayor Glickman and City Council,
Los Gatos Gateway is a good project that has gotten better as it has gone
through the town's approval process. Sobrato Development's assessment of a
need for more housing and less office space should be accepted as
authoritative. We urge the Town Council to approve the application for a
revised plan.
Page 1
- -
JAN 1 4 , L004
:31~.~..
Most people think of Los Gatos as beginning at the freeway rather than a
little distance beyond. We actually are quite fortunate to have this
commercial location on our outskirts where we can meet our transportation and
housing responsibilities without affecting the low-density character of the
rest of the town.
The town has already accepted that Winchester and 85 is the ideal location
for higher density, a mix of commercial and residential, and for a transit
station. We hope the City Council will take the steps required to finally get
it built.
Yours,
Victor Aboukhater
293 Casitas Bulevar
Los Gatos, CA. 95032
Attachment 7
S A N T A C L A R A
Valley Transportation Authority
January 9, 2004
Mr. Bud N. Lortz
Director of Community Development
Town of Los Gatos
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Subject: Revised Design - Los Gatos Gateway
Dear Mr. Lortz,
~cs
(7-1 ~pS GP, T
~ ' -I-A~T1Vir
r
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff has. reviewed the revised .
proposal for the Los Gatos Gateway project (formerly Vasona Research Park) from
Sobrato Development Companies.
The revised proposal, which includes 295 housing units in a mixed-use project, better
addresses the potential future extension of the Vasona Light Rail Project and the location
of a future station adjacent to this development. We support this revised plan. It should
be noted, however, that the future light rail extension is not a funded project.
In previous comments (letter attached) VTA stressed the need for pedestrian access to be
provided along the entire frontage of Winchester Boulevard and strong pedestrian
connections be provided between buildings and the future light rail station. It is also
important to preserve access from Winchester Boulevard to a future bus transfer center
and park and ride lot that will be located immediately south of the development.
We also wish to reiterate previous comments on the importance of bicycle facilities and
Transportation Demand Management measures.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised proposal. If you have any questions,
please call me at (408) 321-5744.
Sincerely,
O`
Qrclm 64
James R. Li tb dy, Deputy Director
Transit Plannin & Programming
Attachment
3331 North First Street • San Jose, CA 95134-1906 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.
Attachment 8
i
1w600 Nortn De Anza Blvd.
Su rte- 200
Cupertino. CA 95014-2075
January 14, 2004
408.446.0 700
Facsimile: 408.446.0583
www.sobrato.com
The Honorable Steve Glickman, Mayor
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
RE: 14300-14350 Winchester Boulevard
Dear Mayor Glickman and Council Members:
SOBRATO
DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES
We request that the Town Council approve the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for Vasona Research Park/ Los Gatos Gateway and the modification to the mix of uses in the
approved Planned Development Zoning for our development at 14300-14350 Winchester
Boulevard. Given that the architecture was unanimously approved and is not proposed to be
changed, we also request that refinements to the approved architecture be addressed by DRC, as
discussed at the August 6, 2003 Council Study Session. At the Council Study Session, the Council
stated its preference for this modified plan over the approved plan given the substantial number of
additional benefits to the Town.
This modified plan presents the Town with the opportunity to achieve more community goals with
fewer, impacts by approving a well orchestrated land plan that creates a true sense of place and
unparalleled living environment, with the highest quality architectural design, landscape, materials,
finishes and details of any project in our portfolio. This will be the nicest apartment home
community with the most wonderful living environment we are aware of.
Approved vs. Modified Project.
As you know, we are proposing to modify the approved mix of uses on the 12.3 acre site from
288,000 square feet of Office/ R&D and 135 apartments to 120,000 square feet of Office/ R&D and
290 apartments. The approved plan includes 34 Below Market Priced (BMP) homes and the
modified project includes 48 BMP homes, an increase of 14 BMP apartment homes.
The approved project includes three story office buildings and three story residential buildings over
a garage. The modified plan maintains the same approach, but delivers less overall height, less
total square footage, less bulk, less mass, and represents a substantial decrease in the intensity of the
site. Specifically, the modified project represents a 207o reduction in overall building volume (mass
and scale), an 18% reduction in site population, a 10% reduction in average daily traffic trips, and
substantially less linear mass than the approved project.
Architecture.
Sobrato, the Town's professional staff, Town's consulting architect and the Planning Commission
spent considerable time and resources on the architectural style and design of the approved project.
J
Attachment 9
i
Los Gatos Gateway
January 14, 2004
Page 2
The Planning Commission unanimously approved the architecture for the project. We are not
proposing changes to the approved architectural style or level of quality of the project. For these
reasons, we are requesting that refinements to the architecture be addressed by the DRC. We have
taken great care to maintain the project's Winchester fagade and have succeeded in keeping it the
same. The materials for the project still consist of sloped barrel tile roofs, stucco walls and ground
floor pedestrian arcades. The project will also improve the interface between the Creek Trail and
this site by blending the new natural landscaping into the existing perimeter vegetation further
emphasizing the natural character of the project. Trellises, vines and extensive landscaping will
compliment the first class architecture. We have also succeeded in keeping the vast majority of the
parking in underground garages. The residential portion of the site has been designed with a
village environment as the theme resulting in a variety of open spaces both active and passive as
well as unique views and perspectives from all locations within the project. We have also included
various one, two and three story elements throughout the site (See attached diagram).
The approved project has a maximum height of 49.5 feet for the office and 41 feet for the residential.
The modified project represents a substantial reduction in height across project site ranging from 5-
15 feet. The predominant height of the residential portion is only 35.5 feet in the modified plan.
Through the modified project, we have lowered building height along the creek trail'by as much as
8 feet.
General Plan Conformance.
The modification to the mix of uses of the approved project conforms to the Towns General Plan
Goals, Policies, and Objectives as no substantial use changes are proposed. General Plan
Conformance for the approved project was previously outlined in a letter by Andrew L. Faber of
Berliner Cohen to the Town of Los Gatos on September 7, 2000 and confirmed by the General Plan
Committee, Planning Commission, and Town Council through their respective affirmative
comments and votes on the issue of conformance. The approved project's EIR also details the
project's conformance with the Town's General Plan. The Addendum to the EIR analyzed the
modified project and reached the same conclusions. The modified project further addresses
numerous Housing Element Goals, Polices and Implementation Measures.
No Significant Environmental Effect.
The approved project and the modification to the mix of uses have no significant environmental
effect. A comprehensive and thorough Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed by Geier
& Geier Consulting (the Town's independent third party environmental expert) for the Town and
approved by the Town Council as part of the approved project. An addendum to the EIR was
prepared by Geier & Geier Consulting as well for the modified project. Both the EIR and
Addendum conclude that there are no significant environmental effects as a result of either plan.
Community Benefits.
In conjunction with the modification, we plan to provide the same or functionally equivalent
community benefits including:
Increased Affordable Housing. A total of 48 (20%) affordable units are proposed,
representing an increase of 13 units from 34 in the approved project. This is a 44%
J
Los Gatos Gateway
January 14, 2004
Page 3
increase in the number of affordable units generated for the Town. While 2070 is
required by the Town, the 15 additional units could not be realized in the approved
project and can only be achieved through the modification.
As described below the number of affordable homes can be increased. For example
the total can be increased to 53 (227o of the total market rate homes) if 25 units were
located at Riviera Terrace.
Los Gatos Creek Trail Improvements. We plan to provide $20,000 for Los Gatos
Creek Trail improvements adjacent to the project. This also includes an emergency
call box if feasible.
Police Communications Infrastructure. We have also agreed to provide rooftop
space (at a location to be mutually determined) for Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police
advanced technology communications infrastructure within the development at no
cost to the Town.
Transit for Livable Communities Funds. With the approval of the project the
Town is eligible for up to $1 million in Transit for Livable Communities (TLC) funds
for a variety of improvements in and around the project.
Express Shuttle. We propose a shuttle or equivalent along with the VTA to provide
service to and from the site to the Winchester Boulevard terminus of the Vasona
Light Rail line in Campbell
Gateway Art Feature. We plan to continue to provide $100,000 for a gateway art
feature(s) to enhance the visual and cultural character of this northern entrance to
Town.
Traffic and Other Public Improvements. Sobrato will implement a variety of
traffic and other public improvements through substantial additional fees
associated with modified project that could not have been realized through the
approved project. In addition to nearly $2 million in traffic fees paid to the Town,
Sobrato will either contribute $50,000 toward offsite traffic improvements in the
area or pay into the new sidewalk fund.
Community Support.
There is significant, diverse and broad based community support for both the approved and
modified plans. The project is supported by project neighbors, Los Gatos residents, Los Gatos
business owners, local community organizations, faith based organizations, environmentalists,
labor, and other stakeholders. Over the past three years, support has come from more than 100
letters (See attached letters) and/or people testifying in favor of the plans including the League of
00
Los Gatos Gateway
January 14, 2004
Page 4
Women Voters, the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce, Greenbelt Alliance, Silicon Valley
Manufacturing Group, Vasona Station and many others.
Key Issues
Open space. The total landscape and open space area (public and private) is approximately 264,000
square feet or more than 6 acres. This includes open space, landscaped areas, private patios, and
walkways. Town Code requires 200 square feet of open space per unit or 58,000 square feet for the
project. The project includes 98,399 square feet of open space, nearly double what is required by
Town Code. These spaces have also been thoughtfully linked to the Los Gatos Creek Trail, the
Future Light Rail Station and to convenient pedestrian access to the nearby retail (See Attached Site
Circulation Diagram).
View Corridor. In response to the Planning Commission, we have created a view corridor through
the site to the creek trail. This was accomplished by increasing the open space area between
townhomes across from the pool area. The tot lot was also relocated to this location to address
suggestions from the Planning Commission. The site plan incorporating the view corridor to the
creek trail option was provided to the Planning Commission on December 18, 2003 and is attached
(See Attached Landscape Plan).
Affordable Housing. The approved project provides 34 affordable units. The modified project
increases the number of affordable units to 48, an increase of 14 additional affordable homes. This
new housing triples the amount of permanently affordable housing stock in the Town's BMP rental
pool.
In addition, the Community Benefit ordinance was established to offset impacts associated with
increases in traffic. As the approved project had no significant impacts and the modified project
creates fewer impacts than the approved project, yet increases the affordable housing component by
41% (with the potential to increase), we do not propose to increase the number of affordable units
further on the site.
In order to further increase the number of affordable homes we are offering to move some of the
affordable homes from the project to the Riviera Terrace Apartments near Downtown Los Gatos.
For each affordable home moved to Riviera Terrace, we will dedicate an additional .20 homes at
Riviera Terrace as permanently affordable. For example, if the Town elected to "move" 25
affordable homes to Riviera Terrace, 5 additional affordable units would be included for a total of
30 at Riviera Terrace, 23 on the project site and 53 total affordable homes (a 56% increase over the
approved project). As Riviera Terrace is already constructed, some units could be put into service
as affordable and be occupied as soon as the new entitlement for the modified plan is vested and
others would be available as market rate units were vacated and converted to affordable rentals in
compliance with Town codes.
This achieves two additional goals and policies for the Town. The new affordable homes would be
spread over a greater geography allowing those residents of the Town seeking affordable housing
greater flexibility and choices. Some will prefer to be within walking distance of the Downtown.
Los Gatos Gateway
January 14, 2004
Page 5
To make this feasible if the Council feels that this is desirable we require that at least 20 homes be
"moved".
Phasing. The Planning Commission previously recommended that phasing be included in the
plans. Some Planning Commissioners are now recommending that no phasing occur. We indicated
previously that developing the project in phases with the office portion first and residential portion
second was not feasible as a result of site constraints and construction staging. We need to be able
to construct the project's residential portion first with one or both office buildings to follow. This
may occur in one, two or three phases all depending upon the market and our objectives. A
phasing plan is attached in the submittal package. No phase is dependent upon another - each will
stand on its own.
Soccer. The Towns General Plan calls for transit oriented development on this site and there is an
approved and modified project consistent with long established plans for this location. While we
are empathetic to the need for soccer fields in Los Gatos, this use is not appropriate for this site or
compatible with the planned uses. Nevertheless, we have worked with the Town staff and soccer
representatives and have identified at least seven sites in. Town currently under public ownership
that, in many cases, already have the appropriate infrastructure (turf, irrigation, parking, etc.) for
soccer. If the Town wishes it could elect to re-prioritize some of the project related community
benefit funds for this use. In addition, we have indicated that we are willing to provide our
expertise and resources to assist the soccer community and Town in achieving. their recreational
goals.
Density. With the approved project, the Town established the appropriate level of density and
intensity for this unique site. The design criteria for the approved project was established at the
minimum threshold recommended for Transit Oriented Development. The modified project is
currently below this minimum but because of the new mix of uses achieves more Town goals (more
housing, affordable housing and rental housing) with fewer/ reduced impacts and less intensity
than the approved project, while meeting the Town's General Plan, Town Council direction, TOD
goals and our business objectives. Further reduction in the number of units or office square footage
would undermine the fundamental tenants of the project. While we expect to continue to make
refinements to the plan with the DRC, we do not support changes in the number of rental homes or
square footage of the office component.
Conclusion.
Over the past three years, we have worked cooperatively and collaboratively with the Town Staff,
Town Council, Planning Commission and community. We are a partner in this community and a
good corporate citizen. We have been forthright. We have operated in good faith and put our best
foot forward at every step in the process. We have told the Town staff; Planning Commission and
Town Council exactly what we need to make the project successful. We could have easily started
with more square footage and more units so that someone could feel good about tearing it down,
but instead chose to play it straight and present our best project from the beginning. We have also
responded to all suggestions and recommendations within the context of the Town's own long
standing plan for this site, TOD goals and our business objectives.
a
Los Gatos Gateway
January 14, 2004
Page 6
The modified plan presents the Town with the opportunity to achieve more community goals with
fewer impacts. The modified project also represents a well orchestrated land plan that creates a true
sense of place and unparalleled living environment, with the highest quality architecture design,
landscape, materials, finishes and details of any project in our portfolio. We have included a series
of vignettes to illustrate the environment we have developed (See attached vignettes).
On behalf of Sobrato„Development Companies, I appreciate your time and consideration regarding
the modification to the approved Planned Development Zoning. We look forward to presenting
this quality, unique and innovative plan to you on January 20, 2004. Again, we request that the
Town Council approve of the Addendum to the EIR for the project, approve the modification to the
PD Zoning and confirm that refinements to the approved architecture be addressed by the DRC. In
the interim, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at 408-446-0700.
Sincerely,
Jo R. Shenk
Senior Vice President
Sobrato Development Companies
Attachments:
Four Vignettes
Colored Site Plan
Circulation Diagram
Single Story, Two Story Elements Site Plan
Reduced Height, Mass Scale Section
Parking Demand Graph
n
,i
I
D.
~j
Atli
I -
f
a
1
}
I y
r,. ,t T~T~GfGf ~
y`^ v ~I
40-
ICI
l t,4 x 1%
1
.
~ ~
! ~
1
Y
1
~j
~ T
'
1
`
~ `
i
` ~ .
~
`
y
1
_1`
-t ,
~
.
1 ~
~
~
~ ,
~
/
;
.
~
`~J
I'+
`
4
j
I _ ~
l~ ~ ~ ` ,
1 L~ ~ '
~ .
yi
r
Yy~ ~
~r ti.,:'
~r
~ /
7-1!T 47, '17
i 1 in f r ` ~ • „}K
t~
ot"-
b0tr
t fq ` 1
•r
t ~
J 1
07
V { .1
~r`t<
i
r -y
-r
C-j
`t
P
B
I
R
it
a e aa:a aia~
;.!'R ]41s
_ - s.a ero~a
a a o-l tl
t r ~i. 51; ~
. .S 1:F
r
is
J O
r <
Y
m
W,
Z
cn Q
u~ J
z :Z
a¢ w
o Q
v U
w: O
= Z
a p ~
oLLI U
O S
O LLLL
~m U
°o) Q)
L F
a
)u=i~ tx
~2 II ~YY+~t
1
"
j l _ - N
s~
V . i A =
6-1
ti, a
_ I QF
~ N NN
O~y - G d Q
ki so
°
1 ~s c Q
VIC
41
III}
CC
A w
za
t _ 1 p o o
ss _ I I. 1~ • 4~ = r
~ ~i I W ~
j--i . i
n
00 Wi
t '
r
~ i
O ~ 5
C ~
O ■
D O -
FO M
f (rL I .
s I .
5 f' I
A I =
t• ~
47
i tow
f
7~ FY'.1
I FiC E2- J7.
J I
r
711
~4
I,
h.
d'
r
Q
W ~E ~L
ar I,.
Wo O
LLo
an la.
W
r
U
W ^1
O I C
w
O
a
a -
- L GL-
~L C
I• 1
~,'ii
l ~
V _ 3
=_o
y
1-
0
a
a
N
C
Y C
L ~
aE
Wd 00•L
Wd 00:9
n
N
~d 0()* S
I
I
d 00'tr
:
c
I
3 OO*.€
ro
E
oo~z
' o~
01
re
N
)O~jt d
~~I
E ,
E R
~
0: OT
D'6
1ire
E~8
L
fl Q )
00
O cC
O
~U
a
J., PHILIP DiNAPOLl
November 10, 2003
Paul Dubois, Chair
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mr. Dubois and Planning Commission'-
While Sobrato Development Companies and the City of Los Gatos agreed upon
the mix of housing and office uses for the Los Gatos Gateway protect at 85 and
Winchester, it seems that the market wants to have the final say. That market
message is less commercial and riwe housing. Without the changes in the
revised plan before you, we would suspect that the project cannot be bunt any
time soon.
This delay would be unfortunate, for Los Gatos Gateway offers many
advantages. The high-quality buildings and landscaping for which Sobrato Is well
known will Improve Winchester Boulevard and thereby the surrounding properties
as well. The transportation benefits also remain. The city and'the schools will
receive more taxes. Both the construction and permanent jobs will be particularly
valuable during the current period of high unemployment'. Even more people will
be able to find a good home in a development with fine bicycle access along Los
Gatos Creek,
urge you to approve the revised plan for Los Gatos Gateway.
Sincerely,
J, Philip DiNepo
17986 poster R d
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Bcc: John Sobrato
John R. Shenk, Sobrato Companies
Mike Myers, Carterisraei ,f
90 A',.MAT3rN QOULCVARO, SUM! 565, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA "113. (4001 9952460 • FAX (406).094.2404 V,
From: "Mike Logan" <d istrict63@sbcglobal. net>
To: <planning@town.los-gatos.ca.us>
Date: 12/10/03 9:03AM
Subject: Sobrato Development
rage _L j
Unfortunately I cannot make the Planning Meeting this evening, but wanted to offer an alternate point of
view regarding the petition from many local residents about earmarking some space from the Sobrato
project for a score field.
I too am a resident of Los Gatos, and likewise I have two school age children that have had to suffer the
plight of facilities challenges (availability and condition) when playing their sports. However, this issue is
much larger and comprehensive than the Los Gatos soccer program. All youth sports, soccer, basketball,
baseball, football, field hockey and the programs offered through the Recreation Department face similar
challenges. This issue has been exacerbated the past two years as Union and Los Gatos School District
facilities have undergone extensive remodeling and therefore limited normal access to those faculties.
Likewise, the emergence of year-round sports opportunities has increased the demands of some leagues
beyond their traditional calendar season.
This is a larger and more complex issue than is being represented, and the media reports are peppered
with inaccuracies. We do have a youth sports crisis in our community - no doubt, but forcing a local
developer to earmark property is clearly NOT the solution. Creating a coalition of the various leagues to
work in concert with the School Districts and the Rec Department is much better first step. Enlisting
private enterprise to donate or participate to that cause is a far better precedent to set than having our
local government require that action as a condition of development.
I firmly oppose this petition or potential course of action. It is morally corrupt from my viewpoint to have
our community take something that belongs to another just because we want it, and then hide behind our
children as justification. I do,,not believe the town of Los Gatos should endorse or be a part of that type of
behavior.
Mike Logan
246 Belvue Drive
Los Gatos
408/358-2651 H
408/445-8344 W
TOWN F LOS GAS` V S
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
fi ',I r 7 f -
October 21, 2003
Bud Lortz, Director of Community Development
Town of Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mr. Lortz:
We want to express support for the Sobrato Los Gatos Gateway development on behalf of
the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. The land use mix of
office/R&D and housing conforms to the Los Gatos General Plan and is very appropriate
in this strategic, transit-oriented location.
The revised proposal pending Town approval is a positive response to specific
community concerns raised last year. The office space is scaled down and more housing
units have been added, including an increased number of affordable units. Architectural
and site design quality have not been compromised in the revised proposal.
We feel that Los Gatos is fortunate that a local company with a strong track record of
success is proposing to develop this strategic parcel of land. The Sobrato Company is not
only successful, but has a reputation for quality development, for holding properties long
term, 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 Vasona Station shopping center
should be the focus of retail businesses serving that area of Town.. Residents of the
Sobrato project will provide additional market support for the Vasona Station retail area.
The Chamber of Commerce's support for this revised project is consistent with the
support of the original project, which was approved by the Town Council in 2002. We
urge the Planning Commission and the Town Council to approve this revised proposal.
Sincerel~, ~
Phil Johnson, President
im Derrybe , ~Vicresident for Legislative Affairs
408-354-9300 • Fax 399-1594 • chamber®losgatosweb.com www.losgatosweb.corn
Information & Executive Office: 349 North Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, Ca. 95030
~r 4 IRWW_
MTI
MINETA
TRANSPORTATION
INSTITUTE
Created by Congress in 1991
SJSU Research Center
210 N. Fourth St., 4th Fl.
San Jose, CA 95112
Tel 4081924-.7560
Fax 4081924-7565
e-mail: mti comti.sjsti.edu
http://transweb.sjsu.edu
Founder
Hon. Norman Y. Mineta
Board of Trustees
Honorary Co-Chairs
Congressmember Don Young
Congressmember James Oberstar
Chair
Michael Townes
7 ice Chair
Hon. John Horsley
Executive Director
Hon. Rod Diridon
Rebecca Brewster
Donald Camph
Anne P. Canbn
Dean David Conrath
Hank Dittmar
Bill DoreY
David Gunn
Steve Heminger
Celia Kupersmith
Dr Thomas Larson
Bob Lingwood
Brian tLlocleod
William Millar
William Nevel
Hans Rat
Lawrence Reuter
Vickie Shaffer
Paul Toliver
David Turnev
Edward Wytkind
;moo
October 17, 2003
RECEIVE
O C 1 2 2 2003
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Pt ANN!i'4 i)caC wT:9 = f7
Chairman Paul Dubois
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Chairman Dubois and Planning Commissioners,
We were extremely pleased when Los Gatos followed through on
the town's long support for the Vasona transit corridor by approving the
Los Gatos Gateway project adjacent to the light-rail station site.
There is clear consensus among both local governments and voters
that the regional transit system should be expanded and that growth should
be directed into greater densities around transit stations. This policy is
being pursued as a means to avoid urban sprawl while accommodating
growth and ultimately reducing traffic congestion.
We supported Los Gatos Gateway as it was proposed and
approved, and we support the revised even more strongly. Increasing the
number of residences while decreasing the size of the office buildings
increases the housing stock and represents good planning in many
respects.
We applaud the plan for the express shuttle from the site to the
Campbell light-rail station. We favor development that allows more
people who work in Los Gatos and in our Valley to also live there.
Your support for the Los Gatos Gateway project will be good for
Los Gatos and the Valley now and in the future.
Si~cerel ,
Rod Diridon
Bob Lewis Volkswagen
JU i 2 7 3
TOVI''N OF L CS Gf T OS
°LA.h'..:,;.;.,~ J'=LIAI T"F:'"
Chairman Paul Dubois
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 E, Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Oct. 19, 2003
Dear Chairman Dubois and Planning Commissioners,
911 Capitol Express-ay Auto Moll
San Jose. CA 95136
Tel 408/265.4400
Fox. 408/445.9146
info@boblewis.com
boblewis.com
Many of the people who work in Los Gatos and on whom we rely for our daily services must
commute long distances to get here. Even people with college degrees and solid, middle-class
incomes find it extremely difficult to both work and live in our town.
The amendment proposed by Sobrato Development for the previously approved Los Gatos
Gateway project will help these people by increasing rental housing opportunities near their work.
While demand for housing continues, the market for offices has fallen so sharply that it will take
1 years to work off the surplus. Under these conditions, the scaled down office buildings that
Sobrato now proposes are preferable to those earlier approved.
The two uses for this project were always dependent on each other from both a planning and an
architectural perspective. But unless the town approves the proper mix, Los Gatos Gateway
could be put on hold at a time when we need the housing, the jobs and the taxes.
We urge your approval of the pr posed amendment to Los Gatos Gateway.
Sin~rel~
4
Bob Lewis
16051 Greenwood Rd.
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
Exhibit Y_i
CHARLES J. TOENiSKOETTER
25570 FIRHAVEN LANE
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95030
Chairman Paul Dubois
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
October 17, 2003
Dear Chairman Dubois and Los Gatos Planning Commission,
The PD zoning that was approved for Los Gatos Gateway last year
represented the best efforts of three years of study, hearings,
negotiations and planning. It was a good project for the site, the
neighborhood and for Los Gatos.
Now the office market has changed. With a slow economy and a
projected slow recovery, it could be 8 or 10 years before all the large
corporate campuses that have already been built are fully leased.
Nobody knows this portion of the office market better than the
Sobrato Development Companies. We concur with their assessment.
that smaller office buildings will better suit the needs of Los Gatos
while still providing the architectural presence required by the major
boulevard that they front.
Fortunately, the Sobrato Companies are as expert in rental housing as
they are in large corporate campuses. We can count on them to
deliver a superior residential project that meets a proven demand and
provides numerous benefits for the adjacent neighborhoods and the
town as a whole.
We urge you to approve the proposed amendment to Los Gatos
Gateway.
Sincerely,
Charles J. Toen-iskoetter
25570 Firhaven Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95033
Fxbihir mu
Colleen B. Wilcox, Ph.D.
59 College Avenue
Los Gatos, California 95030
October 22, 2003
Mr. Paul Dubois, Chairman
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Chairman Dubois:
L ,.3
As a resident of Los Gatos, I have supported Sobrato Development's Los Gatos Gateway
project for a number of reasons, including its benefits for public transportation, providing
jobs and taxes and improving Winchester Boulevard. But as an educator, my strongest
support has been for the opportunities it provides for teachers to rent homes nearer the
schools where they teach.
Since the revised plan provides significantly more housing that the original one did, the
new plan may be even more desirable.
Locating a significant source of market rental housing at this easily accessible site can
help to hold down housing costs for middle class families like those of teachers in Los
Gatos..The affordable housing component will allow people who may now commute long
distances to work in Los Gatos and to live closer to their jobs.
I urge you to approve the revised application for Los Gatos Gateway. Thank you for
giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts with you.
Sincerely,
*-Olt.
Colleen B. Wilcox
~'xhihi t RK
4
.nor, roooci uct. el 12: 46PM P1
ROBERT STE.ACY &ASSOC
2336 SAMARITAN DRIVE
SAN JOSE, CA 95124
October 21, 2003
Attn: Paul Dubois
Chairman of Planning Commission
c/o Town Manager, Fax 399-5786
RE: Sobrato Development
PH (408) 356-6821
FAX (408) 351-0134
EMAIL rsteacy@earthlink.net
OCR ~ 2002
Dear Sir,
It was recently brought to my attention that there will be an extensive development taking place off
of Winchester and 85. Progess is terrific and I applaud the ingenuity and efforts of the individuals
behind these projects. That being said, I would hope that the developers involved would also
recognize certain aspects and needs of the community at the same time, and consider donating a very
small parcel of land that m Ay be used for community sports. Therc is a finite number of undeveloped
acres left in the Los Gatos community, and field availability for youth sports has become dire. Asa
long time member of the Los Gatos and San.Jose soccer community, I would very much appreciate if
one small acre of level land could be donated within this Sobrante development to community sports
and related activities.
Strong ties between corporate development and the community should always remain at high levels
and this donation would go a very long way to reinforce that thinking. Thank you for your
indulgence in this matter and I hope that something can be done on these lines.
" S rely,
Robert Steacy
,W-U- L - -
CHARTER OAKS TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION
200 Willow Hill Court
Los Gatos, CA 95032
408-871-1882 tel
831-401-2715 fox
ib@bonno.com
October 22, 2003
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
1 10 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Reference: Sobrato Project
Dear Members of the Commission:
This letter comes to you on behalf of the Charter Oaks Townhouse Association: A 10-acre
PUD located at the intersection of Lark Avenue and Charter Oaks Drive that is home to a
community of 250 adults and children.
Charter Oaks is one of the closest residential areas to the Sobrato site. While we have long
recognized the site would ultimately be developed with more dense uses and appreciate your past
actions to notify us of pending actions regarding the site, we received no notice whatsoever
regarding the proposed change to the mix of R&D and residential uses. While we assume this was
an oversight, we do believe it to be a serious one.
Charter Oaks has concerns regarding the traffic impacts of the Sobrato development,
regardless of what form it takes. These concerns are heightened by the traffic anticipated with the
pending Community Center development on Oka Road and the light rail shuttle service at the
Sobrato site that we understand will be available to the public. We expect the combined traffic
impacts of the Sobrato and Community Center developments on Charter Oaks will be significant
and warrant your close scrutiny.
While right turns from Charter Oaks onto Lark do require patience, it is difficult and
dangerous to make left turns from Charter Oaks onto Lark at certain times of the day. We believe
the Sobrato and Community Center developments will aggravate these conditions.
We request that the Planning Commission evaluate the traffic impacts of both projects on
Charter Oaks and consider appropriate mitigation measures such as:
■ Add a traffic signal at Charter Oaks and Lark, or
• Remove the left turn lane from lark (at intersection of Charter Oaks) into the R&D parking lot:
the lot is constantly used as a short cut to University Avenue, and
■ Add a safety pocket on Lark for cars making left turns from Charter Oaks, and
• Improve the line of sight from Charter Oaks to traffic coming from the left on Lark
The Charter Oaks community appreciates your attention to its concerns and looks forward
your favorable consideration of this request. Any questions or correspondence related to this matter
should be directed to the Association c/o Jack Bonno at the address above.
The Board of Directors of the Association unanimously approved this letter on October 20.
Sincerely,
~a O* /ffa4wi t
Gary Manning, President
Charter Oaks Townhouse Associction
Copies: Members of the Town Council
Ouzanne uavis - Z:)ouia[o ueveiupment Hage I
From: <VEAGA@comcast.net>
To: <planning@town.los-gatos:ca.us>
Date: 10/20/03 9:09AM
Subject: Sobrato Development
Chairman Paul Dubois
Los Gatos Planning Commissionj
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Chairman Dubois,
We are residents near the Sobrato Development Companies's proposed Los Gatos
Gateway project who have supported it because of the benefits to public
transportation and to improving Winchester Boulevard. We've also felt that
building rental apartments behind the offices would help alieviate the
housing shortage that causes many people employed in Los Gatos to commute
long distances.
We've reviewed the proposed amended plan and feel that it preserves the
original transportation and commercial benefits while increasing the housing
benefit. The reasons for changing the mix seem perfectly reasonable. With so
many empty office buildings in the valley now, it makes, little sense to build
another large campus. Without the changes being proposed, probably nothing
will get done on the site. And we want it to be improved.
Please approve the amended zoning for Los Gatos Gateway when it comes before
the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Victor & Gima Aboukhater
293 Casitas Bulevar
Los Gatos 95032
F.Yhihi r P
vC& ley 1-1rg urOup 14uk3 5o1 /861 P..02
Carl Guardino
489 Bird Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
October 15, 2003
Paul Dubois
Chairman
Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
U C T 2 C 2003
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLOP!^;IiJG DEPART':IEJT
RE: Letter of Support for Sobrato Development Companies' Los Gatos Gateway Project at
14300 Winchester Boulevard
Dear Chairman Dubois and Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing to you to express my support for the modifications to the Planned Development
Zoning for the Sobrato Development Companies Los Gatos Gateway Project.
As many of you know, I have spent many years of my professional career advocating for
smart growth developments like the one presented to the Town of Los Gatos by Sobrato
Development Companies. This development provides Los Gatos with a unique opportunity
- the creation of a true transit-oriented development. The intensification of mixed uses
along transit corridors is a concept that many cities throughout Silicon Valley have
embraced because it allows them to meet many of the goals of their General Plans while
providing necessary housing and jobs to members of their communities.
More personally, I moved to Los Gatos nearly a year ago, and enjoy our community
immensely. I frequently use the Los Gatos Creek Trail, which runs adjacent to the Sobrato
project. I believe that in addition to being the perfect location for a smart growth
development, the addition of housing along the creek trail will make it safer for the runners
and cyclists who use the trail either early in the morning or late at night. Additionally, Los
Gatos has a tremendous need to provide additional affordable homes to its residents. The
Sobrato development would provide an additional 45 units of affordable housing in Town
which would nearly triple the current amount available. Several of these homes also would
be set aside for the teachers in our community, a personal passion of mine. The
modifications to the Planned Development Zoning for Los Gatos Gateway provides the right
mix of uses for the Town of Los Gatos.
I respectfully urge you to approve the modifications to the Los Gatos Gateway project as
proposed by the Sobrato Develop nt Companies.
cer y
arl Guardino
F.Yhih; r n
ouzanne uavis - oolraio rroteur Page 1
From: Dennis Chambers <dennis@cps-co.com>
To: <planning@town.los-gatos.ca.us>
Date: 10/20/03 10:57AM
Subject: Sobrato Project
Chairman Paul Dubois
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos Ca 95030
October 19, 2003
Dear Mr. Dubois and Planning Commissioners,
The Sobrato Development Companies' project already approved for Winchester
and Highway 85 offers many benefits for Los Gatos. We should encourage its
early construction by approving the application to revise the mix of uses.
As a Los Gatos resident (469 Wraight ave), I'm faced with passing
that property and thinking how much better Winchester Boulevard will
look with Sobrato-quality buildings and landscaping there.
As a specialist in commercial real estate, and with a vacancy of over
62 million square feet of office and R&D space begging for tenants in
the greater Silicon Valley, I know how difficult it would be for the
Sobratos to find one or two users for the large campus they had
originally planned. The proposed smaller office buildings are much
more in line with the current market for corporate headquarters in
Los Gatos. The current market conditions are likely to continue for 5
to 7 years.
In addition to improving Winchester Boulevard, Los Gatos Gateway will provide
jobs, housing, public revenue and transportation improvements. It was and is
a good project, and the town should adopt the revisions that will allow it to
proceed.
Yours,
Dennis Chambers
469 Wraight ave
Los Gatos, 95032
395-0182
Dennis Chambers
dennis@cps-co.com
http:www.cps-co.com
Exhibit S
Donald D. Grainek
371 Pennsylvania Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95o3o
Phone: (4o8) 354-6,254
Fax: (408) 354-9344
October 20, 2003
Chairman Paul Dubois
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos Ca 95030
Dear Chairman Dubois and Planning Commission,
VIA FACSEMLE (408) 3547593
The town's approval last year of Los Gatos Gateway constituted good, long-term
planning that promised to provide a number of benefits, including housing, jobs, public
transportation and enhancement of Winchester Boulevard. The amendment before you
that alters the mix of approved uses does not diminish these benefits and should assure
that the project actually gets built.
The town's approval of this project culminated ztearly three years of meetings, studies,
planning and hearings. During this period, the plan got better, but the officer&d market
f got worse. And there's been little recovery since. Bconomic recovery in the valley has
been slow, and hiring even slower. Tha scaled back commercial use is more appropriate
for today's market as well as for the tnarket as long as we can safely forecast.
The demand for housing, meanwhile, has performed quite the opposite.
Particularly at the lower end, the housittg market is strong throughout the valley and
particularly in Los Gatos.
The revised plan for Los Gatos Gateway maintains virtually all of the
benefits of the original plate, while adding to the amount of new rental housing that is so
desperately needed. More importantly, it should entire that the project gets going,
I urge your approval of the Sobrato application for a revised PD zoning of Los Gatos
Gateway,
Sincerel
Do
T'J C07'f11.1
VU e. LU. LUU~ 't•61:ai
Daniel P. Doore
Chief Executive Officer
•
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
OF LOS GATOS
Tmt MthSyuem
October 17, 2003
Paul Dubois
Los Gatos City Hall
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Los Gatos Gateway
Dear Chairman Dubois and Los Gatos Planning Commissioners:
L10• 0410 r. C/4
Community Hospital of Los Gatos strongly supported Sobrato Development Companies' project
because of its positive impacts on transportation and neighborhood revitalization. We now offer our
support for the amendment to increase the housing component. We believe the additional housing Brill
assist in attracting sorely needed healthcare professionals to our community, and will offer our current
employees an attractive new option to live within walking distance of the hospital.
We currently have an average daily workforce of 400 people. Since the hospital lies within 2,000 feet
of the proposed bus stop for the express service to the Campbell Light Rail Station, we are confident it
would persuade an even greater number of our employees to travel by public transportation instead of
by automobile. We anticipate that some of our employees will immediately make use of the shuttle.
Community Hospital of Los Gatos is planning to implement a major capital improvement program at
our campus, and we expect to be an important member of this neighborhood for many years to come.
We're counting on Los Gatos Gateway's office buildings to add significantly to the attractiveness and
importance of Winchester Boulevard as the town's northern approach. We're confident that a high-
quality housing development between the commercial front and the creek behind will help assure that
our neighborhood remains prosperous, attractive and safe.
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you require further information.
Sincerely,
liel P. Doors
DPD/pr
cc: Bud Lortz, Director, Los Gatos Community Development Department
blortz adtovv4 los-gatos.ca.us
815 Pollard Road, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Tel (408) 966-4002 Exhibit U
Fax MAR) RRR-JW.4
UC(. EU, 1UC1'~ ~m IWK,H UOtLUrMtiNi 4Ud boo ))~6 NU. D,1 N. 1
October 20, 2003
A R H
c ~
a m
O 4
~ a
1 N 3 u1
The Honorable Paul Dubois, Chairman
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 Fast Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Chairman Dubois and Members of the Town Planning Commission:
I am pleased to again provide my support to Sobrato Development Companies' Los Gatos
Gateway project on Winchester Boulevard.
As an adjacent property owner to the Los Gatos Gateway, I am pleased to see the
modifications that have been made to the plans. We are very supportive of the increase to the
residential component of the project. March Development supported the project during the
PD Zoning application in 2002, and continues to support the modification of the plan because
we believe that Sobrato Development Companies has presented the Town of Los Gatos with
the best mix of land uses for the site. This project will be an asset to the entire community of
Los Gatos.
During the Town Council study session on August 6, 2003, there was a discussion regarding
the addition of retail to the proposed project. As the Planning Commission deliberates the
modifications to the project, it should be pointed out that there is sufficient retail in the area.
Our development, Vasona Station, provides significant neighborhood retail services almost
directly across Winchester Boulevard from the proposed project. In addition, there is another
neighborhood center, Rinconada Center, located approximately one mile west on Pollard
Road. I have attached a summary of the type of retail businesses currently located within
these two centers, which will adequatelyprovide a variety of goods and services to the
residents of the Gateway Project.
It is important to note that historically, there have been vacancies at both shopping centers.
Therefore, we are strongly opposed to the additiom of any retail to this project and hope that
the planning commission will not make a decision that will adversely affect the existing retail
centers.
X respectfully request that the planning Commission approve the modifications to the zoning
for the Los Gatos Gateway Project, and allow Sobrato to begin construction in a timely
meaner. -
QSincerely,
Beth WnghL
Principal
March Development Company
Exhibit Z
MARCH DEVELOPMEW COMPANY* 141 o3-b Wlnchestar Bhrd., Los Gatos. CA 95032 t:4oUa.5469 f 448.866 5536
uu~ c. u~ uca Legac~j rartners 7605101572 p.2
Edgar NL Thrift, Jr.
Gail Ross Thrift
140 Wilder Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95830
Paul Dubois, Chairman
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 55030
October 21, 2003
Dear Chairman Dubois and Planning Commission,
Please add our support to the Sobrato Development Companies' application for a revised plan for
Los Gatos Gateway. This project is good for Los Gatos, but without the change in mix, it is
not likely to be built very soon.
Los Gatos Gateway has been in planning for several years, and during this time both the market
and our local economy have changed dramatically. Industry has grown more efficient and less
demanding of more space, even if we didn't already have a huge surplus of empty buildings. The
60,000-square-foot buildings that the Sobratos now propose are much more in keeping with the
size needed for a corporate campus by a company already in Los Gatos or located outside the
town and wanting to relocate here.
The demand for housing, meanwhile, continues unabated, especially rental housing with an
affordable component. Many people who work in Los Gatos suffer miserable commutes, and it
would serve them and their employers well to offer a local housing alternative.
We urge approval of the Sobrato Development Companies' application for a revision to the PD
zoning for Los Gatos Gateway.
Sincerely,
Edgar M. Thrift, Jr. and Gail Ross Thrift
K
Exhibit BB
Nicolette Rodman Kelly
224 Loma Alta Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95032
October 15, 2003 RECENED
Paul Dubois, Chair OC 2 C 2003
Los Gatos Town Planning Commission TOWN of ~o
Town of Los Gatos , s aATOS
a_aNVII,iC r cD_~TtAE,T
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Dear Chair Dubois:
This letter is to express my support for the Los Gatos Gateway Project.
As a business person and long time resident of Los Gatos, I was please to see
the Town Council approve the Los Gatos Gateway project in February, 2002.
The modified plan that is presented to you for your review further demonstrates
the Sobrato Company's willingness to provide the Town of Los Gatos with the
best project possible. I am very supportive of the change in uses to provide more
housing in our Town.
The Sobrato Company is committed to the Town of Los Gatos, and has
demonstrated it by bringing back a plan that reflects what the community asked
for - more housing. I believe they have come up with the best mix of uses for the
site. I would ask the Planning Commission to listen to the residents of our town
and approve the modified plans for the Los Gatos Gateway project.
Sincerely„
Nicolette Rodman Kelly
Exhibit CC
,u. wine uavIs - uosO_~ia(os t_-)aieway Page 1
From: 11 michaelsilva" <michaels4va@comcast.net>
To: <planning@town.los-gatos.ca.us>
Date: 10/21/03 10:29AM
Subject: Los Gatos Gateway
October 21, 2003
Dear Chairman Dubois and Planning Commissioners:
My name is Michael Silva. In light of previous commitments scheduled at the
same time as the planning commission meeting, that includes the Los Gatos Gateway
project, I want to voice my feelings and opinion about the project
Last year both the Planning Commission and the City Council determined that
Los Gatos Gateway was the right project at the right time for the right
location. There was a clear majority if not a clear consensus that the mixed
uses on a single platform over underground parking would allow the highest
quality buildings and the most extensive landscaping.
This project will help to improve Winchester Boulevard, provide much needed
housing, encourage use of public transit, improve the creek trail, and bring jobs to
Los Gatos .
Unfortunately, the market for commercial buildings was deteriorating
throughout the planning and approval process. You can't drive around the
valley without noticing all the see-through buildings. Hundreds of them. Tens
of millions of square feet of empty space.
However, The need for housing is still in great demand and need.
I support the concept and hope for the immediate approval of change to the
Los Gatos Gateway project, to reduce the footprint of business space and increase
the footprint of housing.
Los Gatos Gateway is still the right project at the right time for the right
location. It just needs a shift in the mix of uses. You have an opportunity
to approve that shift Wednesday night. I urge you to help get this project
moving. We need it.
Sincerely,
Michael Silva
675 North Santa Cruz Avenue
Los Gatos, Ca. 95030
408 761 1443
Mailing; p o box 1599
Los Gatos, Ca. 95031
Exhibit DD
0(7-21-2803 030M _ FRoW-M02ART DEVROPMENT +650-493-9050 T-495 P.002/002 F-150
October 20, 2003
Cot l~ln
CLASSIC
C O M M U N I T I E S
Paul Dubois
Chairman
Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
RE: Lotter of Support for Los Gatos Gateway Project at 14300 Winchester Boulevard
Dear Chairman Dubois and Members of the Planning Commission:
On behalf of Classic Communities, I am writing to you in support of Sobrato Development
Companies' proposed Los Gatos Gateway proj= I am delighted to see a complimentary
mixed-use development in the vicinity of Classics at Vasona Ranch.
As you know, Classic Communities recently took ownership of the Vasona Ranch property
where we are approved to build single family homes. In conjunction with the Los Gatos
Gateway project, community members will have housing choices in the northern portions of
Los Gatos. We believe that the Los Gatos Gateway project compliments our own
development while providing housing and job opportunities in close proximity to transit, a
goal of the Town of Los Gatos.
The modifications being proposed by Sobrato further demonscrates their commitment to
build the best suited development for the site and the Town of Los Gatos. Reducing the
Office/R&D component while increasing the number of residential units, reduces traffic,
increases open space, and provides a more balanced plan.
Sobrato Development Companies has proposed a quality, mixed-use, transit oriented
development that is appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood, I respectfully request
the Planning Commission support the modified Planned Development Zoning for the Los
Gatos Gateway project as proposed by the Sobrato Development Companies.
SwIt~i `j\
Scott Ward
Vice President
Classic Communities
1068 CAST 141;ADOW CIRCLE, PALO Al?O. CALTFOILNIA $4303
Exhibit FF
TL•LEPHONE (650) q96-+496 F\CSIMILE (650) 393-9050
0
mungg 8wh Iwo WAty Agft Cow dm=GL,
The Santa Clara County Housing Action Coaliban is comprfsed of a broad range of organiza0 ons and indWuab who have,
as a common goal, the vision of affordable, YmXconstmcted and appropriately located housing
September 28, 2003
Sandy Decker
Mayor, Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Dear Mayor Decker:
On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, we are writing to express our support for the revision
to the Los Gatos Gateway mixed-use development proposal by Sobrato Development Companies.
By way of reference, the Housing Action Coalition includes more than 100 organizations and
individuals. Its goal is the production of well-built, appropriately located housing that is
affordable to families and workers in Silicon Valley. Organizations participating in the HAC
include the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, the Home Builders Association, Greenbelt
Alliance, the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, numerous local governments, several
chambers of commerce, Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, Tri-County Apartment
Association, and the Affordable Housing Network.
In its original form, this mixed-use development consisted of two commercial buildings and 105
apartments. The proposed revision would remove a significant portion of the office component
and replace it with an additional l l l apartments for a total of 246 new homes. Forty-nine of
these new homes will be affordable, providing Los Gatos the opportunity to significantly increase
its overall supply of affordable homes.
The Housing Action Coalition is very pleased to see that the applicant would like to add more
housing to the proposal. Coupled with the developer's commitment to provide shuttle service to
the light rail station, we feel this is a smart use of a valuable infrll parcel. By providing both
housing and jobs in proximity to transit, residents and workers can leave their cars at home,
helping to alleviate air pollution and traffic congestion.
The Housing Action Coalition strongly encourages your support of this proposal. Thank you for
your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Lee Wieder
Housing Action Coalition Co-Chair
euwsma
Ti
Hou ng Action Coalition Co-Chair
cc: Los Gatos City Council, Morley Hunter
Housing Action Coalition c% SVMG 224 Airport Parkway. Suile 620, San.lose, Ca 95110
. ~o
K. Hagar
16428 Shady View Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95032
October 17, 2003
The Honorable Paul Dubois
Chair
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, C3 95032
RE: Support of Sobrato Development Company's Modified Los Gatos Gateway Project
Dear Chairperson Dubois:
I am writing in support of the modified Los Gatos Gateway Project. I was pleased to see
that the Sobrato's have responded to the community by providing an alternative plan that
will provide less office space and more, much needed housing in Los Gatos. I am especially
thankful to see that there will be an addition of 45 affordable units to the Town's affordable
housing stock. Los Gatos needs to be able to provide housing choices for all of its citizens.
Sobrato Development is proposing to retain the architectural design that was approved last
year by the Town Council. I believe that it is appropriate to locate three story buildings on
this property. It is at an intersection of a major highway, light rail line and major arteri,,-d
road. This is the most appropriate place in Town to add density. Again, the Town Council
has already approved a development that has three story elements for this property.
I would respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve the modified project as
proposed by the Sobrato Development Company.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kevin a ar
V` V- L V - V J +1 L, ~ J L f ~ I 1 1 l..-VII V Q 1 1 C „r 1' 1 1 y V 1 V 4'.I T V U ~J V 1 / U V 1
i
'Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition
The Santa Clare County Housing Action Coalition is conpris- of a broad rang* of organuantons and individuara who have,
as a common goal, the vision of affordable, weN-constructed and appropriately located housing
September 28, 2003
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Uu i 2 2003
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DEFAP.TiIENT*
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, we are writing to express our support for the revision
to the Los Gatos Gateway mixed-use development proposal by Sobrato Development Companies.
By way of reference, the Housing Action Coalition includes more than 100 organizations and
individuals. Its goal is the production of well-built, appropriately located housing that is
affordable to families and workers in Silicon Valley. Organizations participating in the HAC
include the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, the Home Builders Association, Greenbelt
Alliance, the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, numerous local governments, several
chambers of commerce, Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, Tri-County Apartment
Association, and the Affordable Housing Network.
In its original forth, this mixed-use development consisted of two commercial buildings and 105
apartments. The proposed revision would remove a significant portion of the office component
and replace it with an additional I 1 I apartments for a total of 246 new homes. Forty-nine of
these new homes will be affordable, providing Los Gatos the opportunity to significantly increase
its overall supply of affordable homes.
The Housing Action Coalition is very pleased to see.that the applicant would like to add more
housing to the proposal. Coupled with the developer's commitment to provide shuttle service to
the light rail station, we feel this is a smart use of a valuable infill parcel. By providing both
housing and jobs in proximity to transit, residents and workers can leave their cars at home,
helping to alleviate air pollution and traffic congestion.
The Housing Action Coalition strongly encourages your support of this proposal. Thank you for
your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Lee Wieder
Housing Action Coalition Co-Chair
Ti euwsma
Hou ng Action Coalition Co-Chair
Housing Action Coalition cloSVMG 224 Airport Parkway, Suite 620, San Jose, Ca 95110
C_ . %J -.3
Exhibit R
4. 9
July 31, 2003
The Honorable Sandy Decker
Mayor
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mayor Decker and Members of the Town Council:
I am please to once again provide my support to Sobrato Development Companies' Los
Gatos Gateway project on Winchester Boulevard.
As an adjacent property owner to Los Gatos Gateway, I am please to see the
modifications that have been made to the plans. We are very supportive of the increase
to the residential component of the project. March Development supported the project
during the PD Zoning application in 2002 because we believed that Sobrato Development
Companies presented the Town of Los Gatos with the best mix of land uses for the site
with the highest quality of design and architectural details. This project will be an asset
to the community and to the Town of Los Gatos.
I look forward to the Council's approval of the modifications to the plan so that Sobrato
can begin construction in a timely manner. Therefore, I respectfully request that the
Town Council support the modifications to the zoning for Los Gatos Gateway.
Sincerely,
Beth Wright J
Principal
March Development. Company
Exhibit I
neaaru nFVP nFMFNTCOMPANY 14103-b Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032 t:408.866.6469 f: 408.866.5536
.Iun •26 02 q8: 36a 409-358-7719 P.1
Hagar
16428 Shady YfewLane
Los Gatos, C4 95032
June 24, 2002
The Honorable Lee Quintana
Chair
Planning Commission
Toam of Los Gatos
110 Fast Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Post-it' Fax Note 767 1 oab i , ► _ _ o
To
From
COAM
Co.
Phone
Phone f
Fax 1
Fax M
RE: Support of Sobrato Development Company's Los Gatos Gateway Project
Dear Chairwoman Quintana:
I am writing to restate my support for the I.us Gatos Gateway Project. I was please to see
the approval of the.project by the Town Council in February, 2002. The high quality of this
project can be seen in the exceptional architectural design.
Sobrato Development and its architectural ream have listened to the Town and its residents,
and incorporated many of the element that make I.os Gatos a great place to live and work
into the design. I am very please to see the project moving forward.
I would respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve the architectural design
of the project as proposed by the Sobrato Development Company.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerel ,
Kevin Hagar
Exhibit J
CHARLES J. TOENISKOETTER
25570 FIRHAVE.N LANE ,
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95030
August 8, 2002
Chair Lee Quintana Garo;T
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Chair Quintana and Los Gatos Planning Commission:
While many excellent suggestions have arisen from
architecture and site review for Los Gatos Gateway, there comes a
time when comment by consultants and commissioners reaches its
highest point of usefulness. I believe that time has come for this
project, and I urge you to approve the design that will be presented to
you on August 14th.
The project that is coming before you constitutes the result of
some three years of study, hearings, negotiations and planning, with
comment on and discussion of every conceivable issue. Sobrato
Development Companies has assembled a team of the highest caliber
representing the best talent in the valley. I think that you will agree
that they have addressed every item presented to them, either by
making the suggested change or demonstrating a compelling reason
not to.
Los Gatos Gateway will be closely associated with the Sobrato
companies and the family name. You can be sure that they will pay
attention to every detail and provide the highest quality. It is time to
rely on their expertise and their reputation for quality and integrity and
let them get on with their project.
d
Very truly yours,
Charles J. T skoetter
25570 Firhaven Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95033
408-246-3691
Exhibit T
0
IN4 rF I
Norman Y. Mineta
International Institute for
Surface Transportation
Policy Studies
Created by Congress in 1991
College of Business
San Josd State University
San Jose, CA 95192-0219
Tel 4081924-7560
Fax 4081924-7565
e-mail: anti@nnti.sjstn.edu
http: //transweb. sjsu. edit
Founder
Hon. Norman Y. Mineta
Board of Trustees
Honorary Co-Chairs
Congressmember Don Young
Congressmember James Oberstar
Chair
Michael Townes
August 7, 2002
Chairman Lee Quintana
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
E, Y elro
17 iY
LOS
Dear Chairman Quintana and Planning Commissioners,
In the months since the Los Gatos City Council approved zoning for
the Sobrato Development Companies' Los Gatos Gateway, it has
become even more apparent that this is the right project for the
location. The Town of Los Gatos sent a message that it wanted to be
part of the regional transportation system, and that message was heard.
On numerous occasions, I have heard planners hold up Los Gatos
Gateway as exactly the kind of Transit-Oriented Development that
works for neighborhoods, for cities and for the larger community in
the Santa Clara Valley.
Vice Chair While the architecture and site review process has been long and
Hon. John Holley arduous, I am confident that your efforts have improved what already
was a great design. We look forward to final approval and
Executive Director
implementation of what will be a model for economic growth and
Hon. Rod Diridon
enhanced quality of life.
Rebecca Brewster
Donald Camph
Sincerely,
David Conrath
Lawrence Dahins
Hank Dittmar
Bill Dorey
'
/
David Gunn
J
--Rod Diriaon
Celia Kupersmith
Thomas Larson
Bob Lingwood
Brion Macleod
Miliann Millar
William Nevel
Hans Rat
Laivrenc•e Reuter
Vickie Shaffer
Paid Toliver
David Turnnev
Edward Wytkind
° o M
Exhibit U
BI
EDGAR M. THRIFT; JR.
GAIL ROSS THRIFT
140 Wilder Avenue
Los Gatos; California 95030
August 8, 2002
Chair Lee Quintana
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Chair Quintana and Los Gatos Planning Commission,
'EC
AUG 12 20OZ
TJ'v'JN OF LOS GATOS
~R"~•1,n.,n. =icon?TCrc!IT
n.
We've long admired the work of the Sobrato Development Companies, which are known
for the high quality of both their office and residential projects. , Yet the Los Gatos
Gateway project, which we have been following for more than two years now, will be an
unprecedented effort even for the Sobratos.
It would be most disheartening, therefore, for such a fine project that has been reviewed
and approved by so many people to become mired in the architecture and site review
process. Even during the zoning approval process, it was clear that the applicant was
being forced to respond not only to competing advice and concerns, but conflicting ones
as well. During discussion of the minutia of design, it becomes even more difficult to
provide a single, coherent message to an applicant. Still, I think you will admit that
Sobrato Development has bent over backward to respond to and address every issue that
has been raised.
We would like to see this excellent project get started. We urge the Planning
Commission to apprevp the design on August 14.
Sincerely,
Edgar M. Thrift, Jr.
Gail Ross Thrift
140 Wilder Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Exhibit A
AUG-13-2002 11:5D x - FROM-ALAIN PINEL REALTY 1-408-399-638" T-846 P-002/002 F-T75
Nicolette Rodman Kelly
224 Loma Alta Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95032
August 12, 2002
Lee Quintana, Chair
Los Gatos Town Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Dear Chair Quintana:
This letter is to again express my support for the Los Gatos Gateway Project.
As a business person and long time resident of Los Gatos,.I was pleased to see the Town
Council approve the Los Gatos Gateway project in February. With the specific design
proposed, I am more encouraged than ever that this project will be a tremendous asset to
the Town.
The Sobrato Company's conunitment to the Town has been proven by their willingness
to work with staff and the Commission on the design. I believe they have come up with
the best plan possible for the site. I would ask the Planning Commission to listen to the
residents of our town and approve the architectural designs for Los Gatos Gateway.
Sincerely,
Nicolette Rodman Kelly
Rvhil,i r W
P
0 - -
p R C N
1
~ m
0 0
J 1 r~ ~ ~
August 13, 2002
Lee Quintana, Chair
Los Gatos Planrinz Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Chair Quintana and Planning Comm 'ssi h.
As a representative for the adjacent property owner to the Los Gatos Gateway project, I
am pleased to support the Sobrato Development Company's plan for development.
As you may know, my company, March Development Company; represents the owner of
Vasona Station Shopping Center. We have been waiting for more than a decade to see
this type of development come to our area. It is the most appropriate type of land use for
the site. The Town staff and the Sobrato team have worked to ensure that a quality
design and site plan is proposed for the project. I think that they have achieved that goal
and more.
The time has come to approve the plan so that the project can get underway. I strongly
urge you to vote in favor of the Sobrato_ Development's architectural plans for Los Gatos
Gateway without further delay.
Sincerely,
Alt
n G~
Beth Wright
President
March Development Company
,a
Exhibit %
MARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ,a 14103-6 Wincne,ter BIB-J., Los Gatos, CA 95032 t:408.866.6469 f: 408.8665536
6
Bud Lortz - 081302 * to Los Gatos Planning commission re Gateway project.doc Page 1
T
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
OFFICE OF EDUCATION TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
August 13, 2002
Chair Lee Quintana
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Chair Quintana and Planning Commissioners,
For a number of reasons related to education, I supported the proposed Los Gatos Gateway
project when land use and zoning were before the City Council last January. While I also found
the project to be attractive, I appreciate the efforts that you and other city officials have taken to
affirm that the architectural and site details will fully benefit the people who will live and work
there and the larger community as well. As a Los Gatan, I say that this is a project that we need
in Los Gatos, and I hope that you will approve the revised architecture and site plans at your
meeting on Wednesday.
The difficulty of recruiting qualified teachers in an area of high housing costs continues
unabated, and the 135 rental and affordable units at Los Gatos Gateway will be extremely
valuable.
The increase to the local tax base for schools will also be a great benefit. From the offices alone,
incremental taxes should a great help. While the project is located in the Campbell Union School
District, a portion of the property tax revenue will be shared with neighboring districts and the
larger community as well. Based on the number and proposed mix of units, the Campbell district
does not anticipate that new construction will be required to accommodate children living there.
The Los Gatos schools will receive their share of the revenue without incurring any additional
costs and it seems to be an all around win-win situation.
Most Sincerely,
Colleen B. Wilcox, Ph.D
County Superintendent of Schools
Superintendent: Colleen B. Wilcox, Ph.D.
Board of Education: Alex Bantis I Leon F. Beauchman I Maria Y. Ferrer I T.N. Ho I Anna Song I Mark D. Webster
1290 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95131-23981408.453-65001 ht1o:1/RAyw.$ccoe.o1'
A Champion for Children, Schools, and Community I An Equal Opportunity Employer
Exhibit Y
aniel P. Doore
Chief Executive Officer
0
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
OF LOS GATOS
Tenet HalthSystem
August 12, 2002
Chairman Lee Quintana
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, California 95030
Dear Chairman Quintana and Los Gatos Planning Commission:
RECEIVED
AUG 1 4 2002
TOWN! OF LOS GATOS
PL A.t:NI` G DcaAR.7MENT
Community Hospital of Los Gatos has strongly supported the use and location for Sobrato
Development Companies' proposed Los Gatos Gateway Project because of its positive impacts on
transportation and neighborhood revitalization.
We also support the architectural design; because it is both attractive and practical.
Almost by definition, appreciation for design must be somewhat subjective. What is pleasing to
.one person may be less so to another. Yet the Sobrato design incorporates numerous elements
that are almost universally recognized as appealing, including the use of high quality materials,
the stepping back of elevations, the use of balconies and other elements to soften walls and a
variety of angles and planes. The large underground garage is unprecedented for an office in
this location and it results in an unprecedented allowance for landscaping and outdoor public
areas. Whether you call it "Mission" or "Mediterranean" style, the design has withstood the test
of time.
Our hospital has a stake in seeing a development of this quality proceed in our neighborhood, for
we are undertaking a multi-million-dollar capital improvement program of our own. We expect to
be important member of this neighborhood for as long as we can see. And we see Los Gatos
Gateway as exactly what we need to assure that our neighborhood remains prosperous,
attractive, and safe.
While we like the design from the beginning, we're sure the approval process has made it even
better. We urge you to approve the plan.
Sincerely,
f
Daniel P. Doore
875 Pollard Road. Los Gatos, CA 95032
Tel (408) 866-4002
Fax (408) 866-4003
Exhibit Z
Santa Clara & San Benito Counties
Building & Construction Trades Council
2102 Almaden Rd., Suite 101, San Jose, CA 95125-2190 • Phone (408) 265-7643 - Fax (408) 265-2080
Neil M. Struthers '
Chief Executive Officer July 30, 2002
Josu6 Garcia
Deputy Executive Officer
Jay James
President Bud Lortz
Asbestos Workers 16
Boilermakers 549
Brick & Tile 3
Northern California
:arpenters Regional Council
Carpenters 405
Carpet & Linoleum 12
Cement Masons 400
Electricians 332
Elevator Constructors 8
Glaziers 1621
Iron Workers 377
Laborers 270
Lathers 9144
Millmen 262
Millwrights 102
Operating Engineers 3
Painters District Council 16
Painters 507
Plasterers 300
Plumbers & Steam
Fitters 393
Roofers 95
Sheet Metal Workers 104
Sign, Display 510
Sprinkler Fitters 483
Teamsters 287
Affiliated with:
State Building and
Construction Trades
Council of California
California Labor
Federation, AFL-CIO
California Labor C.O.P.E.
South Bay AFL-CIO
Labor Council
7~a_
-V on
Planning Commissioner 2 N02
The Town of Los Gatos ;r _os ros
110 East Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Los Gatos Gateway Project
Dear Commissioner Lortz:
On behalf of the members that our Building Trades Council represents in
Santa Clara County I would like to request the support of approving the
architectural plans for Los Gatos Gateway Project in your upcoming meeting
of August 14, 2002. I believe that this project is not only going to bring jobs
to the community but will also provide housing to the area which, as we all
know, is a tremendous need for the residents in the county.
In addition, I. wish to express myself by saying that Sobrato is a quality
developer always respectful of the community.
If I can be of further assistance in regard to this matter please contact me at
(408) 265-7643. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely
Neil t the
Chief Executive Officer
® Printed on
Recycled Paper
Exhib i t M
Silicon
~
Valley
.
RECEIVED
Manufacturing
July 22, 2003
JUL 3 Q 2003
Group
, .
The Honorable Sandy Decker MAYOR &TOWN COUNC[.
224 Airport Parkway, Suite 620
Mayor
San Jose, California 95110
Town of Los Gatos
(408)501 -SVMG (7864) Fax (408)501.7861
110 E. Main Street
httpl/wwwsvmg.org
Los Gatos, CA 95031
CARL GUARDING
President & CEO
-
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Dear Mayor Decker:
AARTJ.DEGEUS
Chair
I write on behalf of Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group to express our support for Los
Syn
WILLIAM T. COLEMAN fit Ill
Gatos Gateway, a proposed mixed-use development by Sobrato Development on
Vice Chair
Winchester Avenue at Route 85.
BEA Systems, Inc.
ROBERT SHOFFNER
Secrawy7reasurer
As you may know, the Silicun Valley Manufacturing Group (S v-MG), which was
CITIBANK
founded in 1978 by David Packard of Hewlett-Packard, represents 180 of the Valley's
Board Members:
most respected employers. SVMG members collectively provide nearly 225,000 jobs, or
CRAIG R. SAPPE77
one of every four jobs in Silicon Valley.
Intel Corporation
SUSAN BLACK
Mid Peninsula Bank
Due to drastically changed economic conditions, Sobrato Development is seeking to
ROBERTCARET
amend its approved Planned Development Zoning for this 12.3 acre site, They are
San Jose State University
PETER CARTWAlGHT
proposing to reduce the number of square feet devoted to officesPaceJR&D from 288
Calpfne Corporation
square feet to 120 square feet and increase the number of homes from 135 to 295, of
MAC GREENWOOD
which 49 would be affordable. Sobrato is also proposing to add a one-third acre park
University of California, Santa Cruz
along the Los Gatos Creek trail.
BRIAN HAU.A
National Semicanductor
SEATRIZINFANTE
We supported the original plan for this site because we believe this is an ideal location to
Aspect Communications
concentrate homes and offices. The parcel is buffered on all sides Erom other single-
DAVIDKLINGER
family neighborhoods. It is also in walking distance to retail stores, on a major bus route,
Lock~eed Martel
JOE NATOLI
JOE
and adjacent to a future light rail station-the first and only proposed for Los Gatos.
San Jose Mercury News
Sobrato has also offered to run a shuttle from the site to the light rail terminus in
DEBORAH NEFF
Campbell until or unless the extension to Los Gatos is built.
Becton Dickinson
KO CorporURAation
SclecUon Corpor
For these reasons, we would have liked to see even more homes included in the original
LEN PERHAM
plan. Consequently, we are pleased to support Sobrato's request to revise the plan to .
Clear Logic
permit the construction of more homes. When the economy recovers, experts anticipate it
KIM POLESE
will take years for Silicon Valley to absorb the current oversupply of office space. In
Marimba, Inc
ARTHUR L. ROBERTS
contrast, the demand for homes-particularly affordable homes-is expected to sharply
United Defense LP
increase. Los Gatos Gateway will expand the supply and types of homes available to Los
TOM ROSAMILIA
Gatos-area workers and residents and maximize the investments we as a community
IBM Corporation
DAVID J. SHIMMON
have and continue to make in our transit system.`
Kinetics Group
GORDONR. SMITH
We respectfully urge you and your Council colleagues to approve the modification to the
PaaficGas & Electric Company
approved Planned Development Zoning for Los Gatos Gateway as requested. Thank you
LINDA SULUVAN
NBC 11
for considering our views.
JOYCE M. TAYLOR
SBC
BOB WAYMAN
Sincerely,
Hewlett-Packard Company
KENNETH WILCOX
Silicon Valley Bank
JAMES N. WOODY, M.D., Ph.O
Carl Guardino
Roche Bioscience
President & CEO
DAVID WRIGHT
Legato Systems
o
JOANNZIMMERMAN
cc: Cynthia James, Morley Hunter Group
n
an
John R. Shenk, Sobrato Development Companies
O
il r
g Council Chair
Working
ANDREA LEICERMAN
Kaiser Pennanente
Founded In 1977by
CAVICPACKARD
Exhibit K
. R C v
July 31, 2003
The Honorable Sandy Decker
Mayor
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mayor Decker and Members of the Town Council:
I am please to once again provide my support to Sobrato Development Companies' Los
Gatos Gateway project on Winchester Boulevard.
As an adjacent property owner to Los Gatos Gateway, I am please to see the
modifications that have been made to the plans. We are very. supportive of the increase
to the residential component of the project. March Development supported the project
during the PD Zoning application in 2002 because we believed that Sobrato Development
Companies presented the Town of Los Gatos with the best mix of land uses for the site
with the highest quality of design and architectural details. This project will be an asset
to the community and to the Town of Los Gatos.
I look forward to the Council's approval of the modifications to the plan so that Sobrato
can begin construction in a timely manner. Therefore, I respectfully request that the
Town. Council support the modifications to the zoning for Los Gatos Gateway.
Sincerely,
Beth Wright
Principal
March Development Company
- - 10.e-
s, ! t
PROTECTING OPEN SPACE AND PROMOTING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES
August 14, 2003
The Honorable Sandy Decker, Mayor
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Re: Los Gatos Gateway - Amended Proposal SUPPORT
Dear Mayor Decker:
Greenbelt Alliance, the Bay Area's leading land conservation and urban planning
organization, has endorsed the amended proposal for Los Gatos Gateway and urges your
support for this exemplary Residential and Office/R&D transit oriented development on
Winchester Boulevard proposed by the Sobrato Development Companies. Our
representative, Tamara Shelton, recently spoke at the Town Council study session
considering the revised Planned Development proposal.
In January 2002, after a careful review of Sobrato's initial and revised
development proposals, Greenbelt Alliance endorsed the project, rating it as one
deserving our strong support. At that time, modifications proposed by the developer in
response to Planning Commission comments resulted in an increase in residential tlnits
and a decrease in office space. We are pleased to see that the cturrent project will offer
even more residential units, while scaling back the office component, and will result in 49
j units of affordable housing.
The modified Los Gatos Gateway will offer a number of important community
benefits, including a dramatic increase in the number of affordable rental mots in the
Town of Los Gatos. The project's location directly across from the planned Vasona
Light-Rail Station supports the use of mass transit and also provides access to existing
shops, food and entertainment. The new design creates a greater amount of on-site open
space along with access to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. In addition, the developer has
proposed a 113-213 acre park adjacent to the.creek trail. As in their original proposal, the
project also includes a shuttle for residents and employees to and from the Campbell line
terminus until the light-rail line is completed to Vasona.
In sum, these features represent significant community-serving benefits that will
enhance the development and further the town's General Plan Goals, Policies and
Implementation Measures for the site and Sub Area.
b1A1N OFFICE + 531 Howard Street, Suite 510, San Francisco. CA 94105 r (415) 5936771 + Faux (415) 543-6781
SOLANO/NAPA OFFICE + 725 Texas Street, Fairfield, CA 94533 + (707) 427-2308 + Fax (107) 4?-'~e a
SOUTH BAY OFFICE + 1922 The Alameda. Suite 213, Sandose, CA 95126 • (408) 983-0855 + Fax (
FAST BAY OFFICE + 1601 North Main Street, Suite 105, WainUL Creek, C4 94596 • (925) 952-7776 + F.- Exhib i.t H
SONONL-k/MARIN OFFICE + 50 Santa Rosa Avcnuc. Suitc 307, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 + (707) 575-3661 +
rnug l,+ uc,ub:z)4p Ureenbelt Rliianc. (4151543-6781 p,3
Letter to The Honorable Sandy Decker, Mayor
8/14/03
p. 2
We are pleased to supportwhat we believe will be a high-quality transit oriented
development that contributes to envirorunental sustainabil'
ity
, economic vitality, and
social equity.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Janet Stone
Livable Communities Program Director
Greenbelt Alliance
cc: vBud Lortz, Director of Community Development, Town of Los Gatos
Cynthia James, Morley Hunter Group
Swta On D mq g Aeft Cow
The Sents Clara County ffousing Action Coaft" is comprfsed of a broad range of organiwbam and kxtl duals who have,
as a common Wat the vision of aAbrdeble, weN-corrsbuded and appropriately !orated houshg
September 28, 2003
Sandy Decker
Mayor, Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Dear Mayor Decker:
On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, we are writing to express our support for the revision
to the Los Gatos Gateway mixed-use development proposal by Sobrato Development Companies.
By way of reference, the Housing Action Coalition includes more than 100 organizations and
individuals. Its goal is the production of well-built, appropriately located housing that is
affordable to families and workers in Silicon Valley. Organizations participating in the HAC
include the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, the Home Builders Association, Greenbelt
Alliance, the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, numerous local governments, several
chambers of commerce, Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, Tri-County Apartment
Association, and the Affordable Housing Network.
In its original form, this mixed-use development consisted of two commercial buildings and 105
apartments. The proposed revision would remove a significant portion of the office component
and replace it with an additional 111 apartments for a total of 246 new homes. Forty-nine of
these new homes will be affordable, providing Los Gatos the opportunity to significantly increase
its overall supply of affordable homes.
The Housing Action Coalition is very pleased to see that the applicant would like to add more
housing to the proposal. Coupled with the developer's commitment to provide shuttle service to
the light rail station, we feel this is a smart use of a valuable infill parcel. By providing both
housing and jobs in proximity to transit, residents and workers can leave their cars at home,
helping to alleviate air pollution and traffic congestion.
The Housing Action Coalition strongly encourages your support of this proposal. Thank you for
your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Lee Wieder
Housing Action Coalition Co-Chair
Tim euwsma
Hou ng Action Coalition Co-Chair
cc: Los Gatos City Council, Morley Hunter
Housing Action Coalition c% SVMG 224 Airport Parkway, Strife 620, San Jose. Ca 95110
ICCCEM
RECEIVED Mills
III■
JAN - 8 2002 III■
LEGACY
wwtwaas
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
January 8, 2002
Planning Commission
c/o Bud Lortz, Director,
Los Gatos Communtiy Development Department
blortz@town.los-gatos.ca.us
Dear Chairman Lyon,
I've lived in Los Gatos for many years, and I've spent as many years following and admiring the work
of the Sobrato Development Companies. Their projects are of an-extremely high caliber, tastefully
designed with excellent materials and always sensitive to the specific location and its surroundings.
But there's something even more remarkable. Every one, of their buildings is a corporate campus or a
single-user tenant. None are typical multi-tenant office buildings. As a result, the proposed Los Gatos
Gateway project will surely become a corporate or divisional headquarters with numerous benefits for
our town. Among these are:
1. Higher quality buildings with more employee amenities, more meeting rooms and more space
per employee.
2. Employment opportunities that are likely to appeal to Los Gatos residents and employees who
will want to live in Los Gatos.
3. Additional local volunteers and contributors whose efforts will enhance our community vitality.
The Sobrato proposal is excellent and appropriate for the site. I urge you to approve the application
without further restrictions that jeopardize the size and quality required to attract a major corporation to
our town.
Sincerely,
Edgar M. Thrift, Jr.
Partner
Legacy Partners
thrifte.le gacypartners.com
LEGACY PARTNERS, 4000 E. THRID AVENUE, 4111 FLOOR, FOSTER CITY, CA 94404
Attachment 9
William R. James
15750 Winchester Boulevard, Suite 103
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Jim Lyon E I VE D
Chairman 1 0
Los Gatos Planning Commission 2602
Town of Los Gatos OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Los Gatos, CA 95032
RE: Support of Los Gatos Gateway Project
Dear Mr. Lyon and Planning Commissioners:
I have been a small business owner and resident of Los Gatos for many years. I wanted to
express my support for the Sobrato's project as designed
I believe that the proposed mixed use project is appropriate for the site. After watching
development in this town for many years, I am pleased to see a developer propose a
project that is appropriate for the location. The site at Highway 85 and Winchester
Boulevard is the correct place to put a higher density offfice/residential project.
This project will greatly benefit our community. Please approve the Sobrato's proposal
for the site.
Sincerely, , ice/
William
V
Attachment 13
Nicolette Rodman Kelly
224 Loma Alta Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95032
James Lyon, Chair 2002
Los Gatos Town Planning Commission J~YP4 OF cos
Town of Los Gatos 'LANNINC OEpAGATOS RNENT
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Dear Chairman Lyon:
This letter is to state my support for the Los Gatos Gateway Project.
As a business person and resident of Los Gatos, I am pleased to support the Los
Gatos Gateway project. This project is a wonderful opportunity for the Town of
Los Gatos. It is a well designed, mixed-use plan that takes advantage of its
proximity to the future Vasona Light Rail line. Developing a highee•density
project that includes residential and office affords people the opportunity to live
close to their jobs. This proposal will also add affordable housing for many of the
Town's residents that cannot afford to be homeowners. This is the type of
development that the Town should encourage along the Vasona Light Rail..
The Sobrato Company's plan is smart growth for Los Gatos. I would ask the
Planning Commission to please approve the Los Gatos Gateway project.
Sincerely,
r ,
Nicolette Rodman Kelly
Attachment 14
Bud Lortz - Sobrato Project
From: Joseph Gemignani
To: <manager@town.Ios-gatos.ca.us>
Date: 1/15/2002 12:41 PM
Subject: Sobrato Project
Hi Debra, it was very disheartening to attend and speak at the last
planning commission meeting in which we were presented a wonderful
opportunity for Sobrato to build such a beautiful project for our
city. After I spoke in favor of it and countless others did so, the
planning commission didn't consider our input at all,
Every one of those members has a different idea or agenda.
If you have any influence on the matter I would like to see this project
get approved before Sobrato pulls out and we end up with a project nobody
would like.
Secondly, this should provide additional tax revenue for other capital
improvement projects.
Thanks for your time.
Joseph.
Attachment 15
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\User\Local%20Settings\TEMP\GW}00012.HTM 1/25/2002
STEVE MIRASSOU 17294 NAGPAL COURT MONTE SERENO.CA.95030
Chairman James Lyon
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Chairman Lyon,
We live near the proposed office and residential project proposed for
Winchester and Highway 85, but are relatively new to the neighborhood.
Since its not been long since we thoroughly examined the area and chose
to make a significant investment based on existing development and
traffic patterns, you might expect us to oppose any significant changes.
In fact, we support the Sobrato proposal, and urge you to approve the
application before you.
The last two years have shown that what appeared to be an entirely new
information economy was actually little different from the vulnerable
old economy, requiring constant attention, adaptation and support. The
proposed project will support our economy and our quality of life in a
number of ways.
Building a high-quality corporate- office constitutes a higher, more
contemporary and more appropriate use for land historically used for
both heavy and light industry.
A transit-oriented development that starts from day one with shuttle
service to Campbell will help connect us-to the regional transit system
on which the valley's future depends.
Additional housing, especially some that is affordable, will help enable
people to live in the town where they work, which is important for the
health of any community.
Sincerely,
Steve Mir
~CEIVED
JAN 3 0, 2002
MAYOR & TOWN COWICIL
.com
SANTA CLARA COUNTY T OFFICE OF EDUC-ALI
ACM-1
UEIVED
Cohen B. Wilcox. M.D.
Suptrinhndirrt JAN 2 4 2002
} V !i
MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL
January 18, 2002
Mayor Randy Attaway
Los Gatos Town Council
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mayor Attaway and Town Council:
I am writing to you regarding the proposed Los Gatos Gateway project. The 135 rental
apartments will provide one of our community's greatest needs - homes that teachers and other
school staff members can afford. As you know, one of the most difficult tasks we face in
education is recruiting qualified teachers, because they cannot afford to pay Silicon Valley prices
for housing.
The 25% affordable units are particularly valuable and directed specifically at teachers and other
public employees who work in Los Gatos and would like to live here as well. This proportion of
affordable units is not only unusually high for Los Gatos, where I'm told it will double the
existing amount, but for the valley as well. Both as an educator and a Los Gatos resident, I
appreciate this aspect of the Sobrato proposal.
Rental apartments are particularly attractive to younger teachers and other school district
employees. The location along the Los Gatos Creek Trail should be very desirable for those who
hike, jog or bike.
The proposed offices are attractive and will increase the tax base for our schools by $1 to $2
million annually. While the project is located in the Campbell Union School District, a portion of
the property tax revenue will be shared with neighboring districts and the larger community as
well. Based on the number and proposed mix of units, the Campbell district does not anticipate
that new comtrsction will be requircd to a~;conintodatc children rig there.
Most Sincerely,
i
Colleen B. Wilcox, Ph.D.
County Superintendent of Schools
i
: cbwllh
I
Board of Education
Ales Bands • eon F. Beauchman • Maria Y. Ferrer • T. N. Ho • Andrea Leidermar. • Anna E. Song • Mark 1
1290RidderPark Drive . Sanjose,CA95131-2398• Phone 408-453-6500. www.sccoe.org Attachment 16
.90001 I 15
A gvmpbn [or Children,Schoolx.:md Communur ..in Eq d Opponunin Gnplorer
0
Bud tortz
From.,
<VEAGA@attbi,com>
To:
<blortz@town.los-gatos.ca.us>
Date:
1/25/2002 7:24 AM
ra6c 1 Oi 1
To:
Los Gatos City Council
c/o Bud Lortz, Director,
Los Gatos Community Development Department
b)ortz@town.los-gatos.ca.us
As a resident who lives near the proposed Los Gatos
Gateway project and a banker concerned with the health of
the Los Gatos business community,
I urge the City Council to approve the application by
Sobrato Development Companies.
A large, high-quality corporate campus and multiunit
residentialdevelopment Is exactly what is needed at this
major crossroads in what
has long been an industrial area on the northern edge of
town.
The immediate benefits of this project will be more
taxes, more jobs, shorter commutes, help for working
families and a boost for retail and service businesses in
town. There will also be improvements for the popular Los
Gatos Creek Trail. Locating a major corporate campus in
town will enhance our community spirit, volunteerism and
contributions.
Longer term, the project will help bring light-rail
transit to Los Gatos, benefiting both Los Gatos residents
who commute out and Los Gatos workers who commute in,
Approval of this project will demonstrate that Los Gatos
is cooperating not only with regional housing and
transportation goals, but with its own housing and
transportation policies as well.
Victor E. Aboukhater
293 Casitas Bulevar
Los Gatos, CA. 95032
Attachment 17
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\User\Local%20Settings\TEMP\GW)0001O.HTM 1/25/2002
l Bud Lob. =sobr;ft!odevlopment.doc Page
Eugene E. Blakeslee
17354 Creekside Court
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
By email: Bud Lortz
Director Los Gatos Community Development Department
blortz@town-los-gatos.ca.us
Chairman Lyons
Los Gatos Planning Commission
Dear Chairman Lyons and Los Gatos Planning Commissioners:
I am writing to support the Sobrato project proposed for Winchester and Highway 85. Every
project the company has built has enhanced the local community and been responsive to adjacent
neighborhoods, and we can count on the same level of quality in Los Gatos.
Like most other West Valley residents, I have supported development of public transit in order to
reduce the valley's nearly exclusive dependence on automobiles for transportation.
I live near the Los Gatos Gateway project and support it as a way of helping assure that light rail
transit will be extended to Los Gatos. We believe that a transit station near Highway 85 will
enhance traffic flow and reduce congestion, both regionally and locally. In addition, it will obviously
benefit the environment.
As much as we support transit, however, we realize that just building new lines will not necessarily
redirect large numbers of people into using it. To succeed, transmit must redirect development
into the areas around transit stations.
The Sobrato project will be the only one Los Gatos will ever be able to approve next to a transit
station, and it could not be a more perfect location. It provides an ideal mix and number of jobs,
residents and affordable housing. While we are not guaranteed that approving the project will
persuade the VTA to extend the line from Campbell, we are virtually assured that refusing to allow
a transit-oriented development will keep transit out
Winchester and 85 is the perfect location for the high-quality, mixed-use project. proposed by the
Sobrato Development Companies. It should be approved without delay.
Gene Blakeslee
Attachment 18
zsz~ ra Pq`'
e
gam.--
MTI
Norman Y. Mineta
International Institute for
Surface Transportation
Policy Studies
Created by Congress in 1991
College of Business
San Jose State University
San Jose, CA 95192-0219
Tel 408/924-7560
Fax 4081924-7565
e-,nail: rnti@mti.sjsu.edu
http://transweb.sjsu. edit
Founder
Hon. Norman Y. Mineta
January 24, 2002
Mayor Randy Attaway
Los Gatos City Council
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mayor Attaway and City Council members:
ftC k_1 ✓ I V E-U
JAN 2 8 2002
MAYOR & TOWN COL'NCI
For nearly 20 years, Los Gatos City Council members have participated in and
supported the studies and deliberations that led to adoption of the Vasona transit
corridor with a light-rail station on Winchester BouIevard,near Highway 85.
Among the people working with us from Los Gatos were former mayors Tom
Ferrito, Brent Ventura and JoAnn Benjamin. They and their fellow City Council
members wrote their support into the
Los Gatos general plan, where it remains town policy.
Now, after all these years, you finally have an opportunity to act on this policy by
approving a Transit-oriented development on the adjacent Sobrato property. Here
is why you should approve this TOD.
There is clear consensus among both local governments and voters that the
Board of Trustees regional transit system should be expanded and that growth should be directed
Honorary Co-Chairs into greater densities around transit stations. This policy is being pursued
Congressmember Don Young throughout the light-rail system as means to avoid urban sprawl while
CongressmemberJames Oberstar accommodating growth and ultimately reducing traffic congestion.
Chair Two studies conducted by the Mineta Transportation Institute show that the
Michael Townes policy is working as intended. Transit-oriented development- adds value to transit,
Vfc•e Chai, to the lower density neighborhoods around them and to communities in general.
Hon. John Horsley Transit-oriented development does not intrude on nearby neighborhoods; in fact,
it enhances them.
Executive Director
Hon. Rod Diridon
Most people think of Los Gatos as a low-density community, and for the most
Donald Camph part, it is. But significant buildings have always helped form the town's character,
Dean David Conrath and a high-quality mixed-use project at this unique location will both conform to
Susan Coughlin the town's tradition and enhance its future. Transit-oriented development works_
Lawrence Dah,ns It is not only g
Bill Dp,ey ood for the
Han!` rey a' Santa Clara Valley as a region, but for individual cities and neighborhoods as
well.
Celia Kuperstnith
D,: Thomas Larson Los Gatos Gateway qualifies at the low end as a transit-oriented development. I t
Bob Lingrvood is proposed for the appropriate location adjacent to a designated transit station
Brian Macleod site. I urge you to support it.
William Millar
James Molinelli Sincerely,
William Nevel
Hans Rat
Lawrence Reuter
Vickie Shaffer
Paul Toliver `
David Tc,r,iei! Rod Diridon
George Warrington Attachment: 20
Edward V vWcind
•O
a0
January 26, 2002
Gall,koss Thrift
140 Welder,venue
Gos Gatos. Caltfornla 95030
~Jfj L?S
Mayor Randy Attaway
Los Gatos City Council
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mayor Attaway,
As a homeowner concerned about the continued economic strength of our local and
regional economy, I urge you to approve the proposed Sobrato project on the former A to
Z Nursery site. I am confident that the Sobratos will fulfill their pledge to build an
excellent, contemporary project on this former industrial site.
Sobrato Development caters to major corporations, and we are lucky to have a site that
will accommodate a corporate headquarters without impacting our residential
neighborhoods.
The Sobrato proposal will set a tone for other improvements in the commercial area along
Winchester Boulevard. It will pay more taxes significantly in excess of its cost in city
services. It will allow more teachers, firemen, policemen and other middle-class people
who provide important services in Los Gatos to live near their work. Since the project is
located at a freeway intersection and will connect to transit; we will be gaining all these
benefits without any significant impact on traffic.
Sinc rely,
Ga' Ross Thrift
Los Gatos Homeowner
P'
Attachment 71
I
1 %d LL1 V LL
JAN 3 1 2002 "
Tuesday, January 29, 2002
MAYOR & 1~~~'-k,,\.
Stephan McNulty 4727 Hacienda Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
Mayor Randy Attaway
Los Gatos Town Council
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mayor Attaway,
The Sobrato proposal for Winchester and Highway 85 is very near our home at 4727
Hacienda Avenue. We support this development for a number of reasons, but primarily
for its L~npact on transit.
I work for the County of Santa Clara in San Jose. If I could get on light-rail at the
intersection of Winchester and Highway 85, it would be ideal for getting to work.
Presently it takes me longer to get to work in downtown San Jose by-taking the Santa
Clara Valley T`ransit Bus, than it takes me to drive to San Francisco in my car. I need to
change busses twice to get to my work. That is an incredible hassle. My neighbors also
look forward to a new transit station near our homes.
At the same time, many of the, people who will work at the new development will live in
San Jose, and they tan come here by transit.
[n addition to letting my neighbors and me leave our cars at home, the new transit station
would allow people who work in Los Gatos restaurants and retail "stores to leave their
cars at home. I know approval of the Sobrato project does not mean we will get a transit
station right away, but I think this is exactly the'kind of project that should be located
around transit stations. If you do not support 'a transit-oriented development, we will
probably not get a transit station in the Los Gatos area.
Thank you for YOU help in making sure this Important 01~vel6prnent is approved by the
Los Gatos Town Council
Sincerely,
to an McNulty
(408) 376-3863
Attachment 22
• ills
ills
ills
EGACY
PARTNERS
CENE
January 25, 2002
JAN 2 9 2002
TOWN OF LOS GATUS
PLANNING DEPP,RTNAIENT .
Mayor Randy Attaway
Los Gatos City Council
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mayor Attaway,
I've lived in Los Gatos for many years, and I've spent as many years following and admiring the work
of the Sobrato Development Companies. Their projects are of an extremely high caliber, tastefully
designed with excellent materials and always sensitive to the specific location and its surroundings.
But there's something even more remarkable. Every one of their buildings is a corporate campus or a
single-user tenant. None are typical multi-tenant office buildings. As a result, the proposed Los Gatos
Gateway project will surely become a corporate or divisional headquarters with numerous benefits for
our town. Among these are:
1. Higher quality buildings with more employee amenities, more meeting rooms and more space
per employee.
2. Employment opportunities that are likely to appeal to Los Gatos residents and employees who
will want to live in Los Gatos.
3. Additional local volunteers and contributors whose efforts will enhance our community vitality.
The Sobrato roposal is excellent and appropriate for the site. I urge you to approve the application
without fi h r restrictions that jeopardize the size and quality required to attract a major corporation
to our toym.
Sincerely,
l
I
Edg . 71ri
Parter
Leg cy P ners
thri (a leeacvva
i
CC ~ D
i
LEGACY PARTNERS, 4000 E. TRRID AVENUE, 4'3 FLOOR, FOSTER CITY, CA 94404
PHONE (650) 571-2200 FAX (949) 215-2541
Town Manager (External) - Sobrato Project
From: Town Manager (External)
To: joseph.gemignani@eimac.cpii.com
Date: 1/29/2002 5:05 PM
Subject: Sobrato Project
Dear Mr. Gemignani:
Thank you for your email about the proposed Sobrato development on Winchester Boulevard.
It is my understanding that the Planning Commission did consider all of the public comments
that were received. However, a project of this magnitude raises numerous policy, concerns
and I believe that several Commissioners concluded that these policy consideration were
outside their purview as a Planning Commissioner since the Town Council sets Town. policy.
In any event, due to the type of applications being requested the Town Council is the final
decision making authority. Consequently, the. Commission forwarded the project to the Town
Council with a neutral recommendation. The Commission did provide numerous important
comments about the project that the Council will take into consideration during its evaluation
of the project.
The Sobrato project will be considered by the Town Council at a public hearing on February
4th. Your email will be provided to the Town Council but I encourage you to attend the
meeting and provide direct input to the Council. Your interest in this project is greatly
appreciated.
If you have any questions, please contact Bud Lortz, Community Development Director of
Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner at 354-6875.
DEBRA 3. FIGONE
Town Manager
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\User\Local%20Settings\TEMP\GW}00057.HTM 1/29/2002
4 . - ( Page 1 of I
Bud Lori
From:
<VEAGA@attbi.com> .
To:
<blortz@town.los-gatos.ca.us>
Date:
1/25/2002 7:24 AM
To:
Los Gatos City Council
c/o Bud Lortz, Director,
Los Gatos Community Development Department
blortz@town.los-gatos-ca.us
As a resident who lives near the proposed Los Gatos
Gateway project and a banker concerned with the health of
the Los Gatos business community,
I urge the City Council to approve the application by
Sobrato. Development Companies.
A large, high-quality corporate campus and multiunit
residentiaidevelopment is exactly what is needed at this
major crossroads in what
has long been an industrial area on the northern edge of
town.
The immediate benefits of this project will be more
taxes, more jobs, shorter commutes, help for working
families and a boost for retail and service businesses in
town. There will also be improvements for the popular Los
Gatos Creek Trail. Locating a major corporate campus in
town will enhance our community spirit, volunteerism and
contributions.
Longer term, the project will help bring light-rail
transit to Los Gatos, benefiting both Los Gatos residents
who commute out and Los Gatos workers who commute in.
Approval of this project will demonstrate that Los Gatos
is cooperating not only with regional housing and
transportation goals, but with its own housing and
transportation policies as well.
Victor E. Aboukhater
293 Casitas Bulevar
Los Gatos, CA. 95032
~ninnc~_...:.___~Tr----~T---ini~no~a,:_.__~-r~x.m~r!~t»nnnints~,r ii-~c~~nn-~
s
Hagar
16428 Shady Rew Lane
Loa Gatos, CA 9M32
Jim Lyon, Chair
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
RECEIVED
JAN 1 C 2002
raP N NG DEPq TMEN7
RE: Support of Sobrato Development Company's Los Gatos Gateway Project
Dear Chairman Lyon:
As a resident of Los Gatos for over 30 years, I have seen numerous changes in our town's
landscape. Many of those changes have defined the character of downtown Los Gatos as a
quaint, charming small town. The northern portion of town, however, does not share all
those same characteristics. It is more commercial in nature with the larger retail centers. .
The Sobrato's Los Gatos Gateway project fits more the character of north Los Gatos. It is'a
high quality, mixed-use project that integrates well with its adjacent uses.
Los Gatos Gateway takes full advantage of its surroundings. This smart growth, infill
project takes advantage of the future mass transit planned for the area. By locating jobs and
housing near mass transit, it will help with the reduction of traffic congestion in the area.
I believe that the Los Gatos Gateway project, as proposed, is the best use for the former A
to Z nursery site. I respectfully request the Planning Commission approve the project
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, 1k
Kevin Hagar
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
SOUTHWEST SANTA CLARA VALLEY
• Los Gatos • Saratoga • Monte Sereno • Campbell
P.O. Box 2865, Saratoga CA 95070-0865
www.lwv-sw-santaclara-valley.org
Telephone (408) 867-VOTE
Statement to Los Gatos Planning Commission
January 9, 2002
Re: Sobrato Application PD 00-4
My name is Dale Hill, and I live at 150 Robin Way, Los Gatos. I am authorized tonight to speak
on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley, formerly LWV of
Los Gatos-Saratoga.
There are several aspects of this application which we support based on our positions on housing
and commercial development.
First, we applaud the combination of employment opportunities and housing for the jobs thereby
created. The League also recognizes the need for rental housing, which this project supplies.
We are pleased that the number of BMP and teacher units has been increased. Our position
supports increases in density near transportation corridors. Our position also supports increases
in heights of residential developments near transportation corridors; so we have no problem with
the residential buildings being three stories.
We are pleased that the three story portion of the R & D. building has been stepped farther back,
to'keep the scale of this large project more in keeping with surrounding buildings.
The plan to provide a shuttle service pending completion of light rail to Vasona Station is a
positive mitigation of traffic impacts.
Last, we are pleased to see the use of sustainable building techniques, minimizing the
environmental effects of this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
3'DWINI Of LOS GAtOS
PLANKING GOM.--Ml.. Sing
:~A
Page 1 of 1
Bud Lortz - Sobrato proposal
From: "Lynn Mirassou" <lmirassou@linkline.ccm>
To: <blortz@town.los-gatos.ca.us>
Date: 1/912002 6:56 PM RECEIVED
Subject: Sobrato proposal JAN - 9 ?nn?
Chairman James Lyon
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110. E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Chairman Lyon,
We live near the proposed office and residential project proposed for
Winchester and Highway 85, but are relatively new to the neighborhood.
Since its not been long since we thoroughly examined the area and chose
to make a significant investment based on existing development and
traffic patterns, you might expect us to oppose any significant changes.
In fact, we support the Sobrato proposal, and urge you to approve the
application before you.
The last two years have shown that what appeared to be an entirely new
information economy was actually little different from the vulnerable
old economy, requiring constant attention, adaptation, and support. The
proposed project will support our economy and our quality of life in a
number of ways.
Building a high-quality corporate office constitutes a higher, more -
contemporary and more appropriate use for land historically used for
both heavy and light industry.
A*transit-oriented development that starts from day one with shuttle
service to Campbell will help connect us to the regional transit system
on which the valley's future depends.
Additional housing, especially some that is affordable, will help enable
people to live in the town where they work, which is important for the
health of any community.
Sincerely,
Steve and Lynn Mirassou
ImirassouAlinkline.com
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
cri_.iir■.%r,%„_....-,.-+-Oi,11) .-AO/_7f1Qot+;,,o\TTczr\TnPola/7()QattinaclTFMP\CTWIf)00109TM 1/1ni,)nm
Bud Lortz - SobratoJanuary8~doc T( F =a
C`i'
HIM
JAN - 8 2002 HIM
LEGACY
wwrwews
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
January 8, 2002
Planning Commission
c/o Bud Lortz, Director,
Los Gatos Communtiy Development Department
blortz@town.los-gatos.ca.us
Dear Chairman Lyon,
I've lived in Los Gatos for many years, and I've spent as many years following and admiring the work
of the Sobrato Development Companies. Their projects are of an extremely high caliber, tastefully
designed with excellent materials and always sensitive to the specific location and its surroundings.
But there's something even more remarkable. Every one of their buildings is a corporate campus of a
single-user tenant. None are typical multi-tenant office buildings. As a result, the proposed Los Gatos
Gateway project will surely become a corporate or divisional headquarters with numerous benefits for
our town. Among these are:
1. Higher quality buildings with more employee amenities, more meeting rooms and more space
per employee.
2. Employment opportunities that are likely to appeal to Los Gatos residents and employees who
will want to live in Los Gatos.
3. Additional local volunteers and contributors whose efforts will enhance our community vitality.
The Sobrato proposal is excellent and appropriate for the site. I urge you to approve ,the application
without further restrictions that jeopardize the size and quality required to attract a major corporation to
our town.
Sincerely,
Edgar M. Thrift, Jr.
Partner
Legacy Partners
thrift@,1 e QacyRartners.com
LEGACY PARTNERS, 4000 E. THRID AVENUE, 4 T" FLOOR, FOSTER CITY, CA 94404
Nicolette Rodman Kelly
224 Loma Alta Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Jc, me ; Lyon, Chair
L(:s C atos Town Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
1"0 E ast Main Street
Lc~s C atos, CA 95032
D-: ar chairman Lyon;
Tliis ; otter is to state my support for the Los Gatos Gateway Project.
A:, a )usiness person and resident of Los Gatos, I am pleased to support the Los
Gato: Gateway project. This project is a wonderful opportunity for the Town of
Los C atos. It is a well designed, mixed-use plan that takes advantage of its
pi oxi city to the future Vasona Light Rail line. Developing a higher density
pi oje :t that includes residential and office affords people the opportunity to live
cl Dse to their jobs. This proposal will also add affordable housing for many of the
T:>wr s residents that cannot afford to be homeowners. This is the type of
dive Dprnent that the Town should encourage along the Vasona Light Rail.
T to : -obrato Company's plan is smart growth for Los Gatos. I would ask the
P ani ing Commission to please approve the Los Gatos Gateway proiect.
S.nci rely,
N.col 1tte Rodman Kelly
January 7, 2002
W4 " ~%N
G.r
WWW.GREENBELT.ORG
RECEI Eru
James Lyon, Chair
Planning Commission JAN 1 C
Town of Los Gatos 2002
1 10 E. Main Street TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Los Gatos, CA 95031 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Re: Los Gatos Gateway (Sobrato Mixed-Use Project) SUPPORT
Item on Planning Commission Agenda of 1/9102
Dear Chair Lyon and Planning Commission Members:
Greenbelt Alliance, the Bay Area's leading land conservation and urban planning
organization, strongly urges your support for the mixed-use development on Winchester
Boulevard, located on the northern periphery of the Town of Los Gatos, and proposed by
the Sobrato Development Companies. After careful review of their initial development
proposal last fall, Greenbelt Alliance has endorsed the project, rating it as one deserving
our utmost support.
In addition, we have reviewed the recent modifications to the project proposed by
Sobrato in response to Planning Commission comments and would also support this
development alternative which increases the housing component and decreases the
office square footage, adds additional affordable housing, and proposes an express shuttle
service. We conclude that either project alternative will provide many important
community benefits for Los Gatos, as well as help protect the Bay Area greenbelt by
utilizing an appropriate infill area for needed residential development.
Greenbelt Alliance has reviewed the town's General Plan and believes that both
Sobrato proposals implement a number of particularly important town policies and goals.
Among the key community benefits provided are: creating more transit- and pedestrian-
friendly development; providing greater housing choices and increasing the amount of
affordable housing; improving the Los Gatos Creek Trail and riparian environment; and
revitalizing an underutilized infill property by creating a high-quality mixed-use project
that fits in with the community character.
Furthermore, the additional community benefits proposed by Sobrato as part of
the increased- housing alternative are far beyond what typically would be offered by a
developer. These include a daily express shuttle provided in partnership with the VTA;
\LalN OFFICE • 530 Bush Street Suite 303, San Francisco G-~ 94108 + 0415) 398-3730 * Fax (415) ?9R-5530
SOT TH BAY OFFICE + 192-1 The Alameda Suite 213. San Jose C-k q5'11-6 • (408) 933-0539 e Fax i =bt?1 9, -1001
NORTH RAY 07F14ZE + 50 Sane: Rosaa-enue Suite 307. S.anm Rosa CA 95404 • 7i)7t 575-Sr,i1 • Fax
LET BA_Y,- =E • 1601 Nnr;!~ NIa:n STreet Suite 1(?5. W:a:rnu C::rreic C-1. 94.596 • ?175! 1'1:,-1-7776
F _
=rs1~~reeni~rlt.ur~ • ~rn,c._ree::beit.or_
a
Greenbelt Alliance
Letter of 1/07/02
p. 2
additional affordable housing units (increased from 20% to 25°'0 of the total).:Nirh seven
targeted for Los Gatos teachers. substantial additional hinds for Los Gatos Creek Trail
improvements and an art feature; and other financial contributions for traffic, street and
pedestrian circulation improvements.
The project location is particularly well suited for housing and office uses, given
that Winchester Boulevard is a major arterial and is currently served by bus lines.
Further, both the Town of Los Gatos and the Valley Transportation Agency consider this
site ideal for transit-oriented development, as it is adjacent to a future light rail station.
Finally, this project fits in well with the surrounding uses and is a particularly
well designed example of a transit-oriented, mixed-use development-. It combines
housing and office uses in a thoughtful site plan that minimizes the visual impact of
parking and maximizes landscaped and open areas. The podium design, with most of the
parking placed beneath the buildings, is not only aesthetically pleasing, but also
environmentally sound, as it reduces the amount of impervious surfaces.
Again, Greenbelt Alliance urges your support for-this desirable and needed
mixed-use development. Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments on this
matter.
Sincerely,
Janet Stone
Livable Communities Program Director
+d +-t ply irt irP`t~r T i' T Gatos
~.'Bu Lo. z, sin n, D' .o::'n cL cs
John R. Shenk, Senior Vice President; Sobrato Development Companies
South B29
Development Company
January 7, 2002
Planning Commission
c/o Bud Lortz, Director
Los Gatos Community Development Department
Los Gatos Planning Commission
Los Gatos City Hall
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mr. Lortz,
P ECEiVED
J'I ' N - 8 2002
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I urge you to approve the Los Gatos Gateway application from S obrato Development
Companies both as a residential neighbor and a commercial neighbor.
We live nearby on Oak Meadow Drive and are very anxious to see the proposed redevelopment
of this property. While we did use the A to Z Nursery and have some regrets at its passing, we
never liked having the cement trucks there. The single-story manufacturing buildings are
outdated. The proposed mixed use R&D and residential is much more contemporary and
appropriate for the property.
In addition, as an employee of South Bay Development, which owns the adjacent property, I am
extremely pleased to support a project that will enhance and upgrade the surrounding
commercial community. Invariably an extremely high quality development such as Sobrato
proposes raises adjacent property values and acts as a catalyst that enables and encourages other
property owners to also upgrade and improve their properties.
Approving a transit-oriented development for the Sobrato site will also improve our chances of
getting the proposed transit station built. The transit station will also encourage improvements in
the area by offeruig an alternative to the automobile for residents and employees.
1690 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008-6901 . 408.379.0400 . Fax: 408.379.3229 . Aww.sbdevelopmen-com . Lec. B1-384393
cc: Jolu7 A. Sobrato
Joluz M. Sobrato
~ W111102 SON=
Acton Coalition iR
no Santa Vora County HousingAcdon Coalition %s comprised o/a broad range orO ganizations and Individuals who have,
as it common goal, the vision of allbrdable, weXconsWeted and appropriatelybeatad housing
September 24, 2001
Mayor & Council
Town of Los Gatos
1 10 E. Main Street
Los Gatos. CA 95031
Dear Mayor & Council:
On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, we are1writing to express our support for the Los
Gatos Gateway EIR housing alternative mixed-use proposal at 1430 and 1450 Winchester8l d
submitted by Sobrato Development.
By way of reference, the Housing Action Coalition includes more than 100 organizations and,
individuals. Its goal is the production of well-built, appropriately located housing that is
affordable to families and workers in Silicon Valley. Organizations participating in the HAC
include the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, the Home Builders Association, Greenbelt
Alliance, the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, numerous local governments, several
chambers of commerce, Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, Tri-County Apartment
Association, and the Affordable Housing Network.
This mixe&use development consists of two commercial buildings and 105 apartments; 25% of
which would be available at below market rate. The additional homes would help Los Gatos to
assist the region in closing the gap between jobs and housing, serving to increase the overall
supply of much-needed homes in Silicon Vallee and positively impacting our region's
jobs/housing imbalance.
The parcel proposed for development is adjacent to'a planned light rail station, and as such,
presents a rare opportunity to capitalize on the potential to link land use and transportation. By
providing both housing and jobs inclose proximity to transit, residents and workers can leave
their cars at home, helping to alleviate both air pollution and traffic congestion. Additionally, the
site is uniquely buffered on all sides, limiting the direct impacts on the adjacent uses. The
Housing Action Coalition strongly supports opportunities to maximize land use and
transportation linkage through greater heights and increased densities adjacent to transit stations
and along transit corridors. The Los Gatos Gateway proposal presents such an opportunity.
Although the Coalition would prefer to see more hoines proposed on this site, use understand the
developer's sincere efforts to tailor a proposal that compliments existing uses and neighborhoods.
The Housing Action Coalition strongly encourages your support of this proposal. Thank you for
your consideration of our comments.
S incerely,
Lee'Nieder Rebecca Elliot
Housing Action Coalition Co-Chair Housing Action Coalition Co-Chair
Ho using Action Coalition c/o SYMG 226 Airport Porky:-ay, Sufte 190. San Jose, Ca 95110
Exhibit Z
15500 Los Gatos Blvd. • Los Gatos, CA 95032 - Phone 408/356.8111 - Fax 4081356.7107
January 4, 2002 0:f- WE IXf ED
JA!-'! - % iiQ2
Chairman Jarnes Lyon TOWN OF Los GATOs
Los Gatos Planning Commission PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Los Gatos City Hall
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mr. Lyon,
It may seem unusual for someone whose family has been in the automobile
business in Los Gatos for more than half a century to be advocating public transit,
but this is precisely the main reason that we support the Sobrato Los Gatos Gateway
project.
Automobiles are our business; we love them. We'll always have them. But we.
also recognize that our future prosperity rests on the creation of a balanced
transportation system. Our love affair with automobiles will surely dim if traffic
congestion keeps us from driving them anywhere, anytime.
Santa Clara County is not going to extend light-rail transit to Los Gatos if the
town rejects a transit-oriented development for what will probably be the only Los
Gatos property to be developed in such close proximity to a proposed transit station.
Town policy and the general plan both support building a transit station at the
intersection of Winchester and 85. We can prove we are sincere by supporting a
development that is exactly what transportation officials envision for the adjacent
property.
Of course there are a lot of other benefits from the Sobrato proposal that will
exist even without transit; jobs, more business for local restaurants and stores, more
taxes for schools and city services, and more affordable housing.
Los Gatos is part of a larger community, and we need to show that we will do
our fair share to solve regional problems. Approval of the Sobrato_ application will
demonstrate the Town's intention to be a part of that solution.
Sincerely,
John lore
uwvw rooreValue _com
Exhibit AA
01/ b01 GCJGG L;L; /-I Uzi k3,-/
Los Gatos Swim and Racquet Club
established in 1959
1998 USPTR International Club of the Year
1998 USIA Nor Cal Sectional Organization of the Year
7anuary 7, 2002
Mr. Jim Lyons
Chairperson
Los Gatos Planning Commission
Re: Sobrato Development Project
Dear Mr. Lyons:
After reviewing the plans for the Sobrato project, we would like to otTer our support for
the development. A transit oriented project with a campus style 288,000 square foot
office and R&D component and a 135 unit residential project will be welcome additions
to the north side of town and we feel beneficial to the business community. We would
hope that this project will speed up the construction of the light rail down to the Vasona
Station, which would help relieve traffic congestion and assist our employee comrnutiug
times.
The project is well conceived and we know the architecture and design will be first class.
The company that eventually occupies the buildings will become the largest tenant in
town and the people who occupy the residences will have the opportunity to live in our
beautiful town.
We are available to further discuss this project should you have any questions or
comments.
Sincerely yours,
Ron Denevi
Owner/Manager
iyiike Denevi
14700 Oka Road • Los Gatos, California 95030 . (408) 356-2136 • Fax (408) 358-2593,
-
i
--A.LAIN PINEL
RECEWED
Jan. 7, 2002
JAN 0 8 2002
Chairman James Lyon
TOWN OF LOS
Los Gatos Planning Commission
COMMUNITY DEVFLOPM
MENT
Los Gatos City Hall
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mr. Lyon and Planning Commission Members,
1 have lived in Los Gatos and sold homes here for many years. The value of these
homes has grown steadily and dramatically, reflecting both prosperity and a
perception that our town is a fine place in which to live. The equity building in our
homes assures us that we will be provided for in retirement as well as that we will
have something to leave to the next generation of our families.
Butproperty values are notguaranteed; they can also decline. And the problems
associated with declinitigproperty values are fargreater than those associated with
appreciation.
The Sobrato project proposed for the formerA to ZNurseryproperty will help Los
Gatos in a great many ways to remain a prosperous and desirable community in
which to live.
Los Gatos Gateway will significantly increase our tax base and ability to provide
community services.
A corporate office there will provide the kind ofjobs for which people who live here
are qualified, and it will bring more business for local retailers and service
companies.
The apartments will enable more middle-class people who workhere and perform
valuable services for the community to also live here.
As Silicon Valley continues to grow, our prosperity will lie increasingly on being
connected to the regional transportation system. The combination ofjobs and
housing includedin the Sobrato proposal is needed to persuade the VTA to build a
transit station in Los Gatos.
I strongly urge you to approve the Sobrato application.
j Linda S. Rodriguez
214 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Office 408.358.1111 Fax 408.358.1199
~n rrn•//~znv~x»nr trim
t T'V
r,
Campo di Bocce
of Los Gatos
Tuesday, January 7, 2002
To: Town of Los Gatos
Attention: Mr. Jim Lyons
From: Tom Albanese
C/o Campo di Bocce
RE: Los Gatos Gateway Project
Sobrato Development
Dear Mr. Lyons,
R ~r--iVED
im4 0 8 2002
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I am the principal owner of the property and business known as Campo di Bocce
located at 565 University Avenue and would like to comment on the above referenced
project.
I am in favor of this project for the following.reasons. Because of the nature of
this mixed use project, I feel, would bring a solid base of people to Los Gatos that could
reinforce our economy here in our Town. Because of people like ourselves that have
made substantial investments in the Town we rely on good sound planning practices that
promote and nurture our local businesses. By approving this excellent use of property that
contains R and D and much needed housing, it accomplishes the primary goal of ensuring
a consistent core of employment and housing that will no doubt bolster-the economy of
the Town. of Los Gatos with the least amount of infrastructure issues.
I strongly urge the planning commission to look favorably upon this project and
vote unanimously to approve this request.
Sincerely,
Thomas Albanese
Campo di Bocce
565 University Avenue Cos Gatos, California 95032 phone: 408.395.7650 fax: 408.395.7596
Exhibit GG
M r1r I
Norman Y. Mineta
International Institute for
Surface Transportation
Policy Studies
Created by Congress in 1991
College of Business
San Jose State University
San Jose, CA 95192-0219
Tel 4081924-7560
Fax 4081924-7565
eanaii: nrti ;77ti.sjsu.edit
Founder
Hon. Norman Y. Mineta
Board of Trustees
Honorary. Ca-Chairs
'70r7C7-ess717an Don }01177g
onoressman James L. Oberavar•
Chair
Paul A. Toliver
Fice hair
Michael S. Tolrr7es
Executive Director
H017. Rod Diridon
Dnncrld H. Ccrn7pl7
Dm id Co77rath
Susnrr ,Yl: Coughlin
Lcrtii. rence Dal;ms
Hanle Dirtmar
Bill Doren
John Horsley
Celia Ktrper-smith
Thomas D. Larson
Bob Lingivood
Brian ,,Wac.ieod
William Afillar
James P. ><lolinelli
William C. Nevel
`1an.s Rat
Lawrence Renter
Yiclcie Shaffer
David L. Turne.v
George lf'nrrinr ronn
Ed1:ard I3i7kind
January 8, 2002
RECEIVED
Chairman James Lyon `r Z00?-
Los Gatos Planning Commission TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 E. Main St. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Chairman Lyon and Planning Commissioners:
Since 1982, Los Gatos representatives have participated in the
studies and deliberations that led to adoption of the Vasona transit
corridor with a light-rail station near the intersection of Winchester
Boulevard and the West Valley Freeway (Highway 85). These
.representatives included former mayors Tom Ferrito, Brent Ventura
and JoAnn Benjamin. Los Gatos's support for this transit corridor
was written into the Los Gatos general plan and remains town
policy.
There is clear consensus among both local governments and
voters that the regional transit system should be expanded and that
growth should be directed into greater densities around transit
stations. This policy is being pursued throughout the light-rail
system as means to avoid urban sprawl while accommodating
growth and ultimately reducing traffic congestion.
Three studies conducted by the Mineta Transportation Institute,
show that the policy is working as intended. Transit-oriented
development adds value to transit, to the lower density
neighborhoods around them.and to communities in general.
Transit-oriented development does not intrude on nearby
neighborhoods; in fact, it enhances them. As a former elected
official at both th-e city and county levels, I know it is difficult to
support greater densities in selected areas of low-densities
communities. But transit-oriented development works. It is not only
good for the Santa Clara Valley as a region, but for individual cities
and neighborhoods as well.
The Sobrato Development Companies' Los Gatos Gateway project
qualifies, albeit at the low end, as a transit-oriented development. It
is proposed for the appropriate location adjacent to a designated
future transit station site. I urge your support.
Sincerely,
~E-CCtVED
Rod Diridon
'JAN 0 9 2002 .
70VVN ()F ! OS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
s
January 9, 2002
The Honorable Jim Lyon
Chair, Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Sobrato Development Company's Los Gatos Gateway Project
Dear Chairman Lyon:
RECEIVED
'JAN 0 s 2002
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I am writing to you and the Planning Commission in support of the Sobrato Los Gatos
Gateway project on Winchester Boulevard.
As a resident of Los Gatos, I have the opportunity to enjoy the variety of
amenities that the Town offers. Los Gatos has a unique character with its quaint
downtown, creek trail system and outlining shopping districts. I believe that the Sobrato
development will add to that character. The addition of upscale apartments and a
business campus at the north end of Town will enhance a currently blighted area. It will
also assist the Town with the development of the Vasona Light Rail line.
The Sobrato family has a long history of building quality projects in Santa Clara
County as well as participating in the communities in which they build. I think the
Sobrato development is a welcome addition to our town. I would urge to Planning
Commission to approve the project as proposed by the Sobrato Development Company.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Scott Monson
16 Bayview
itr 1~JT J:J• TJ
T (J U.J J ~.J J:. J
Jim Lyon
CI2?7f .
Log Gatci . Town Planning Commission
To"z of s Gatos
no E-Aat.. lain Street
Los.'Gaio XA 95030
L.~..:~JFU'1 :JC> 1 VI ti J J~J
r.
t
r-.;ut t0 'L
Ddix Ou Timm Lyon:
Thr tik po for your dedication to serving the Town of Los Gatos. I would like to state my
support f )r the Los Gatos Gateway project on Winchester Boulevard.
I. moved Los Gatos about 8 years ago, and have enjoyed living in our small touts. My
husband, a long-time resident, and my children will be the 3' generation of I,ogans to
attend ICGatos High School. I believe that both the Planning Commission and thr City
Coutial ve done an exceptional job of ensuring that Los Gatos maintains its character and
chaan at an easy task. While I would like to see growth limited in Toxin, I am supportlVe
of this p jeet. I believe that the location on Winchester Boulevard and i li&-vay 85 is the
approp a place for anintensified development. Los Gatos needs morc affordable
houeiag, d combining both housing and jobs on one site makes sense. It is a forward-
thialang oncept that will afford people the ability to five close to tneir work, thus reducing
tra€tc .vri a street.
Los G9to should encourage a real transit-oriented plan for this property since it is located
right on Vasona Light Rail line. The Sobrato Company's plan, I believe, is the tight mix
of uses density. I ask you to support the Sobrato project.
136,-Thom Alta Aveue
LOS: :Ga , CA 95030
Exhibit JJ
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
OF LOS GATOS
reset HMIMSy tM
January 9, 2002
James Lyon
Los Gatos Planning Commission
Los Gatos City Hall
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Chairman Lyon and Los Gatos Planning Commissioners:
Community Hospital of Los Gatos strongly supports Sobrato Development Companies' proposed Los
Gatos Gateway project because of its positive' impacts on transportation and neighborhood revitalization.
We currently have an :average daily workforce of about 400 people, many of whom commute to work by
bus. Since the hospital lies within 2,000 feet of the proposed transit station, we are confident it would
persuade an even greater number of our employees to travel by public transportation instead of by
automobile. We anticipate that some of our employees will immediately make use of the proposed
shuttle bus service to the Winchester light rail station in Campbell, especially if it were to swing by
Knowles Drive.
Patients and visitors also will take advantage of the new public transportation choices made available to
them.
We also hope that some of our employees will be able to take advantage of the new housing proposed for
Los Gatos Gateway. Since they will be within walking distance of the hospital, their commuting worries
will be over.
Community Hospital has just announced an $85 million capital improvement program. We expect to be
an important member of this neighborhood for as long as we can see.
Relying on traditional patterns of low-density development served solely by automobiles will not solve
our traffic congestion problems or maintain our quality of life. .
A high quality, mixed-use, transit-oriented development such as that proposed is exactly what we need to
assure that our neighborhood remains prosperous, attractive and safe.
Sincerely,
Daniel P. Doore
Chief Executive Officer
DPD/pr
V-1,ihi t MM
1
TOWN OF LOS GATO S
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
S11EAKING 100 UUSINESS,
~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ l.lti-fF.NlN(; l~t) -l~I l E: COMMl.1NI l~Y'
February 1, 2002
Mayor and Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Re: Los Gatos Gateway Project
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
The Board of Directors of the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce has reviewed this project and recommends
that the Los Gatos Town Council approve the Los Gatos Gateway proposal for the following reasons:
It is consistent with the General Plan.. The proposed project is the appropriate land use for this area
of the Town, is compatible with surrounding office park and commercial uses and will support the
VTAs consideration of the Vasona light rail extension.
The environmental analysis found no significant adverse impacts. Town staff has analyzed this
project carefully and the developer has agreed to include in the project mitigation measures that will
address those impacts.
The proposal was modified in response to the Town's concerns. The developer has reduced the
amount of office and increased the affordable housing in response to the Planning Commission's
concerns.
The project has positive economic development benefits. The proposal will provide both jobs and
housing opportunities for Los Gatos. Adding new office space to the local inventory can attract new
businesses and provide for expansion of local companies that. are successful. Affordable housing is
also an important benefit for employees of local businesses and school districts who do not have
housing choices
to live in the Town.
Finally, the business community looks to the Town Council to provide leadership that enhances the
overall economic health of Los Gatos in support of service"s and capital improvements that benefit all
residents and businesses.
On behalf of the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, I respectfully ask the Mayor and
Town Council to favorably consider the Los Gatos Gateway proposal.
Sincerely
JDee ryberry, B rd Mem
s Gatos Chamber of Commerce
- - . - • -1 t _ In1~ 9 :1r()<wi•1) c'uIII
The Interfaith Council on Religion, Race, Economic, and Social Justice
Housing Committee c, °L. lwx~e
February 4, 2002 If] FEB Q 20 1V
Mayor Randy Attaway and City Councilmembers
Town of Los Gatos CE Of 1
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Gentlepersons:
It is with regret. that I will not be able to be present at the Town Council meeting tonight
to speak on behalf of the Interfaith Council in support of the Sobrato Planned
Development project on Winchester Avenue.
Our Council past chair, Rabbi Melanie Aron of Congregation Shir Hadash in Los
Gatos,spoke in support of the project at the Planning Conunission hearing, but she has
since left the country on a sabbatical.
It is our understanding that the project is in compliance with the Town's General Plan and
will help in providing more affordable housing toward Los Gatos' fair share with some
units set aside for teachers and public safety service workers which are much needed in the
community.
The Interfaith Council advocates for all basic human needs including the right of all people
to economic sustenance; safe and affordable housing, education, and health care.
We respectfully ask that you approve this project. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely yours,
BetIF4eldh4eym
Co-chair
Housing Committee
f
1
January 29, 2002
J. PHILIP DINAPOLI
RECLziVeD,
FEB ~OOZ
PLANNING p pSA A~ N
T
The Honorable Randy Attaway
Mayor, City of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mayor Attaway:
RECEIVED
FEB 4 2002
MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL
Our family has owned property in Los Gatos and the Santa Clara Valley since
long before electronics replaced agriculture, and we have seen a lot of
developments approved or disapproved depending on their appropriateness at a
given time. Most of Los Gatos comprises single-family homes of relatively low
density, but our homes have never entirely defined either our town's character or
its charm. There always have been substantial public and private commercial
structures, and the need for them grows not less, but more.
i
We believe it is now appropriate and timely for the proposed Los Gatos Gateway
project to replace the outdated industrial uses at Highway 85 and Winchester
Boulevard. We are fortunate that a. developer with the strength and caliber of
Sobrato Development Companies has proposed to build a project of this quality
at that location. It will benefit and set a high standard for the entire commercial
district on the northern perimeter of our town. It is the appropriate use of the
appropriate size at the appropriate location at the appropriate time: We urge you
to approve this application.
Bards,
J. Philip DiNapoli
99 ALMADEN BOULEVARD, SUITE 565, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 996-2460 • FAX (406) 998-2404
1
LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES F. BOCCARDO
985 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 12
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95032
TELEPHONE (408) 354-5222
FACSIMILE (408) 354.5116
January 25, 2002
Mayor Randy Attaway
Los Gatos Town Council F Y
100 Main Street v 2002
Los Gatos, CA 95030 +'OW LOS GA70,3
y D~~1NN G D Pq'4 NT
RE: Los Gatos Gatewa
Dear Mayor,
RECEIVED
FEB 4 2002
MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL
As a long-time resident and an owner of numerous commercial properties in and around the
Winchester, Lark and University Avenue area, I want to go on record as strongly supporting
approval. of the proposed Sobrato Gateway project. It's especially important that this project be
approved as a development that will qualify as a transit-oriented development.
I recognize what an enormous value it will be for my employer tenants to have light rail so close
at hand. And I know that employers throughout Silicon Valley place a high value on having a
business near a light rail line.
The general feeling is that a substantial, high-quality project such as the Sobratos propose will
enhance economic prospects for both the immediate area and the rest of the community as well.
Having immediate freeway access and a shuttle bus to the new transit station in Campbell assures
that the project will not add to traffic congestion. Providing a corporate headquarters, good jobs
and more housing will increase business for local service companies, retail stores and restaurants.
In addition to immediate financial benefits, employers look forward to the long-term, regional
benefit of having a transit station at this major intersection. Light rail transit enjoys tremendous
support in Los Gatos, and residents have overwhelmingly supported it during elections. Los
Gatos has adopted policy and a general plan that supports extending light rain to this iocatlon.
People understand that transit officials are never going to approve the extension they want unless
the town approves a project like Los Gatos Gateway for the property adjacent to the station.
I greatly appreciate your consideration of this project.
Very truly yours,
m s F. Boccardo
4 _ t
James and Mchelle Rees
16696 Magneson Loop
Los Gatos, CA 95032
January 25, 2002-o~~ - Xyu V E
Mayor Randy Attaway FE-g FEB 4 2002
and the Los Gatos City Council 1 5 202
110 E. Main St. pL-AN NG o,~OPs G,groS MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL
Los Gatos, CA 95030. AATr~E
Nr
Dear Council Members:
We have lived for many years in Los Gatos and are very familiar both with the former A to
Z Nursery site and the high quality projects built by the Sobrato Development Companies.
We have also examined the Los Gatos Gateway proposal and believe that it is an ideal
location for the proposed Los Gatos Gateway. These are the reasons:
The project is large enough to support transit. It is dense enough to assure the highest
quality design and materials. The location at the periphery of the town at the intersection of
a freeway and major arterial prevents any significant impact on traffic, even without the
adjacent transit station.
Los . Gatos will benefit from having a corporate headquarters, increased taxes and
improvements to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. Los Gatos residents will benefit from having
jobs so close to their homes that they can commute by bicycle. Los Gatos employers will
benefit from enhanced transit opportunities for their out-of-town employees. More people
who work in Los Gatos and are vital to maintaining our quality of life will also be able to
live here.
It is for these reasons that we support the proposed Los Gatos Gateway project.
Sincerely,
ames and Michelle Rees
September 17, 2001
PRC fi
y O
Q <
a m
a ^
o O
J 1 N3\4b
Jim Lyon, Chairman
Los Gatos Town Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Chairman Lyons:
TOWN OF LOS Gxros
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I am writing in support of the Los Gatos Gateway project as presented by
Sobrato Development,
Byway of background, I am a. life long resident and business owner in the Town
of Los Gatos. My business, March Development Company, has managed
Vasona Station on Winchester Boulevard since it was built in 1979. lam
pleased to see the development of the Maxxlm and A to Z Nursery sites as a
mixed-use project. The Los Gatos Gateway project will be a nice addition to our
end of town,
Los Gatos Gateway is a well-designed plan that allows for th4 Integration of
office space and housing, while maximizing the amount of on-site open space. It
also takes full advantage of the future Vasona Corridor Light Rail line and the Los
Gatos Creek Trail, This is the most appropriate use for this property and meets
the goals of the General Plan of the Town.
Again, as a business owner on Winchester Boulevard, I am very supportive of
this development in our area and request the Planning Commission's approval of
the mixed-use alternative.
Sincerely,
lv~t
Beth Wright
Principal
March Development Company
F.-rhihi t J
MARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY • 14103-b MinChester Blvd.. I ns r.<r.e r_ ernes - -
L. -
u Town & Country
0Landscaping
& Supply Co., Inc.
Contractors License No. 300450
I.
September 18, 2001
RECEIVED
SEP 18 2001
TOWN OF LOS GA'OS
PLANN!NG DGaA?T1 _^.Y
Dear Chairman Lyon and Planning Commission Members:
For many years I operated A to Z Tree Nursery on the Winchester Boulevard site now
owned by Sobrato Development Companies. While I was sorry to have to give up the
nursery and will miss doing business in Los Gatos, particularly the Christmas tree lot that
had become something of an institution, I have to confess that I don't miss a bit the hard
work that went into the nursery's operations. I'm writing you for two reasons. First of all
to tell you of the incredibly good experience of working with the Sobrato Development
Company. After I was notified that I was losing my lease, John Michael Sobrato met
personally with me and could not have been nicer to deal with. He gave me extra time on
my lease to close the nursery in an orderly manner and transfer my employees to other
sites, and in general provided a high level of consideration and understanding. And
secondly, I've had a chance to review the plans for a mixed-use development on the site
and think they are tremendous. Los Gatos Gateway is an outstanding use for this
property. The location is ideal from a transportation standpoint, with easy access via
freeway,.light rail and the Los Gatos Creek bicycle trail.
If anyone has concerns about the traffic aspect of the proposed
project, I think there are three significant points to remember:
1. The nursery itself and the cement batch plant generated a
tremendous amount of traffic, including heavy truck traffic and retail
traffic on weekends.
2. The traffic in and out of the proposed new project will be
almost 100% reverse commute. Los Gatos residents who work at the site
will in many cases ride bicycles or at best have a very short commute.
3. It is important that this project be approved in order to secure priority funding for
light rail. That transit line will unquestionably serve both employees coming to the
project and residents leaving the project. Not only that, getting light rail in will also
reduce traffic overall because so many other residents will be able to use it.
Even though this project in itself will generate traffic, if it is instrumental in
bringing light rail to Los Gatos, as I believe it will be, it will reduce overall traffic in
town, possibly very significantly.
I
Sincerely yours,
i
i
Ion Anderson
Exhibit R
Please direct remittance and inquiries to:
P.O. Box 320940, Los Gatcs, CA. 95032 (408) 354-6603 = Fax (408) 354-8395
t- HA NU. f Sep. 18 2001 11:51AM P1
Frank Al am
11345 Capri Drive
Los Gatos. CA 95032
REED
~ItI
SEP 1& 2001
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Mr. Bud Lortz, Community Development DircctorPLANN;NG DERP ?rA~ kT
Town of Los Gatos
1101:ast Main Street
I.os Oatos, CA 95030
VIA FAX: 408-354-7593
Re: Sobrato Development Project
Dear Mr. LotV.:
I am the homeowner who's property most directly affected by the proposed
redevelopment of the Maxxim facility and I ani writing to express my 100%c support for
the mixed use development by Sobrato Development Companies. This development
makes sense at this location and will upgrade and add quality and value to our entire
neighborhood.
As a neighbor and property owner living directly across the street from the proposed
project, I ask that the Town of Los Gatos consider my views thoughtfully and move the
project forward expeditiously, Please forward my letter the Town Council and Planning
Commission:
Best Regards,
Frank Alam
Exhibit L
r-~
September 17, 2001
RECEAVED
SEP 1 8 2001
T0'4VN OF LOS GA OS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Jim Lyon
Chairman
Los Gatos Town Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mr. Lyon.
I am writing to request the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission's support for the
Las Gatos Gateway project on Winchester Boulevard.
I live and work in Downtown Los Gatos, and I believe the proposed Gateway project
would be an excellent use of the Winchester Boulevard area.. The idea of mixed use will
provide Los Gatos with needed housing and at the same time add jobs and tax income to
our town. Access to the future light rail will place these homes and jobs near public
transit. Also, it seems much thought has been given to the layout of this unique site,
recognizing the Winchester Boulevard commercial influence and Los Gatos Creek trail.
I believe that the Los Gatos Gateway project is a well thought out development that will
greatly benefit our town. Please approve the mixed-use alternative for this site.
Best regards,
Dan Ross
Homeowner
466 University Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Exhibit M
MIN why September 15, 2Q01
N Mr. James Lyon
Chair Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
226AhponParkway,_Suife 190 239 Johnson Avenue
San Jo"' Califomia 95110 Los Gatos, CA 95031
(408)501-SVMG (7664) Fax(408)501-7861
httpYlwww.svmg.org
CARL GUARDlNO Dear Mr. Lyon:
Presidml i CEO
80ARD OF DIRECTORS I write on behalf of Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group to express our support for
JAMES N. WOODY. M.D., Ph.D Los Gatos Gateway, a proposed mixed-use development by Sobrato
Clair
RwhePhermawulkels Development on Winchester Avenue at Route 85.
AART J. DE GEUS
Via Chair
srvpw As you may know, the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, is a public policy trade
HELENWILMOT organization formed 23 years ago by David Packard of Hewlett Packard. Today, the
sarela l tea,,vra
Eherlrhwrurrca Manufacturing Group represents 190 of Silicon Valley's most respected employers
CRAIG R. BARRETT who collectively provide 275,000 jobs-one out of four in, the private sector. Housing
Intel C&P"aw is one of five top priorities for the organization, including Transportation, Education,
SUSAN BLACK Environment and Energy.
UlaPanl aA av*
ROBERT CARET The housing alternative in the EIR for this 12.3 acre site is for a two- to three-
SanJaso Slate urwmiy story office and residential development that would include 105 apartments, 25
WILLIAM T. COLEMAN III
seA syCoM I. percent of which would-be below market rate. Sobrato Development has
MRC GREENWOOD committed that 5 percent of the homes will be reserved for Los Gatos teachers.
ulumsiry or Cah1 mis. Serra Crux
BRIAN HAL A The parcel is bordered by a water district rock storage facility, an office park, Los
BEATRIZ INFAZINFANTE E
Gatos Creek, and the railroad track running along Winchester Boulevard, It is in
BEAT
Aaoearcannturkaffim walking distance to retail stores, on a major bus route, and adjacent to a future
DAVID KLINGER Light Rail Station-the first and only proposed for Los Gatos.
Lcdrtwed Martin
JoENATOLI Given these conditions, we believe this site is idea for the higher-density
soh Joad Mercury Ne>•s
DEBORAH NEFF development proposed by Sobrato Development. Los Gatos Gateway will
HadoaOickimmm expand the supply and types of homes available to Los Gatos=area workers and
JOENEMETH residents, including the supply of more affordable homes. And, it will increase
IBMCmorarw the opportunity for residents to walk or use transit, rather than having to rely on a
KO NISHIMURA car. By locating a higher-density development such as this on a transit corridor,
Sdactroat Corporahur
LENPERHAM the Town of Los Gatos will maximize the investments we as a community have
CtearLogio and continue to make in our transit system, while giving VTA more reason to
ARTHUR L. ROBERTS extend Light Rail to Los Gatos.
United oetertse LP
ROBERT SHOFFNER
CIT19ANK ideally, we would like to see even more homes approved at this location, given
GORDONR. SM17H that it is buffered on all sides from other lower-density residential areas: But
ForJNCGas 3 EldctrtoCompuy even at this density, Los Gatos Gateway would make an important contribution
JOHN STEWART to the town and our region. Thank you for considering our views.
General Dynamics Elcomics Sowis
JOYCE M. 7AYLOR
Pacific Safi Sincerely,
BOB WAYMAN
Hawte -PSckard Company
DAVID WRIGHT G cc~ .L
Legato Systems
JOANN ZIMMERMAN
Kaiser Pitmanento
Carl Guardino
WorkrngCouncil Chair President & CEO
ROBERT C. SHERRARD'
Mid•Penimle Sank
Founded In 1977 by cc: Planning Commission
DA VID PACKARD
Exhibit= N
Page 1 of 2
A to Z Property Proposal
From: "The O'Laughlins" <polaughl@home.com>
To: <blortz@town.los-gatos.ca.us>
Date: 09/18/2001 6:25 PM
Subject: A to Z Property Proposal
September 17, 2001
To: Planning Commission Chair Jim Lyon and the Los Gatos Planning Commission
Care of Bud Lortz, Director of Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
mai Ito: b to rtz(d-)town. los-gatos. ca. us
Dear Chairman Lyon and Planning Commissioners:
I have followed the proposed development of the former " A to Z Nursery"
property with considerable interest. The proposal addresses two issues
have long advocated during my ten years of service on both the Los Gatos
Planning Commission and the Los Gatos Town Council. The issues are high
density housing near light rail and more affordable housing for Los Gatos
residents.
A'concentration of high density housing will be a considerable inducement
for the Valley Transit Authority to fund extension of light rail to the
Vasona Station. The A to Z parcel is the only one in Los Gatos that will
be adjacent to a light rail station. Whatever project is approved there must
meet the VTA's criteria for transit -oriented development if we are going to
have any priority in funding. The VTA strongly advocates housing and jobs
near its light rail stations.
The proposed housing element of the plan, particularly its affordable
housing portion, will make a significant contribution to allowing
middle-class families that work in Los Gatos to live here. Home prices in
Los Gatos are so high that many people who work here, like teachers, police
and firefighters, often cannot afford to live here. This is an unhealthy
situation that the Town has recognized for many years, but has been unable
to do much about. There are very few sites in Los Gatos that can potentially
offer 105 units of rental housing for these people.
A site fully developed for housing only creates its own set of problems.
This is why I advocate an appropriate mixed use, which logically compromises
between development that generates taxes and development that consumes Town
resources.
Very truly yours,
Pat O'Laughlin
file ://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW} 00007.HTM
RYhihit 0
From: Kim Macdonald <kmacdonald@tbionline.com>
To: blortz@_town.los-gatos.ca.us"' <blortz@town.los-gatos.ca.us>
Date: 09/19/2001 8:54 AM
CC: johnm@sobrato.com<johnm@sobrato.com>
Dear Chairman Lyon and Los Gatos Planning Commissioners,
During many years of involvement in the Santa Clara Valley real-estate
industry, I have found that when it comes to quality development and
personal integrity of the principals, the Sobrato Development Companies is
among our very finest organizations. The Town of Los Gatos can be assured
that whatever representations the Sobrato organization makes
about Los Gatos Gateway or any other project, they will be honored. Key
Sobrato strengths have been experience, capability and local ownership. Now
in its third generation as a family-owned development business, the Sobratos
have become one of the two largest developers in Silicon Valley. They have
won widespread recognition both for outstanding higl -technology headquarters
and campuses and for creative residential communities. Most important, they
nearly always build and hold for their own portfolio, assuring that
tremendous pride goes into both design and construction.
At Toeniskoetter & Breeding,lnc. we have the same philosophy,and I know how
important quality is to a local, family-owned enterprise. Los Gatos Gateway
will be closely associated with the Sobrato companies and the family name.
You can be sure they will pay attention to every detail.
Sincerely;
Charles J. Toeniskoetter
25570 Firhaven Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95033
cc: John Michael Sobrato
Page 1 of 1
fileJ/C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00007.HTM
rage 1 or L
Sobrato Development Project
From: Jim Levitt <jel@quakesafe.com>
To: blortz@town.los-gatos.ca.us"' <blortz @town. los-gatos. ca. us>
Date: 09/19/2001 10:02 AM
Subject: Sobrato Development Project
To: Planning Commission Chairman James Lyon
C/o of Bud Lortz,
Director, Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
blo rtz @town. los-g atos. ca. us
Dear Chairman Lyon,
The Sobrato Development project proposed for Winchester Boulevard north
of Highway 85 offers Los Gatos a unique opportunity to support greater
use of public transportation and lesser use of the automobile. A
mixed-use, transit-oriented development such. as proposed is very
appropriate for the site and location.
Both elected officials and staff in Los Gatos have always publicly
supported light rail. That's one of the reasons we didn't get a larger
interchange at Highway 17 and 85. There will never be a better situation
to put this verbal support into action than this. Even though the site
is on the Campbell side of the freeway, it technically is in Los Gatos.
If the town is not willing to support light rail in the one place where
it has the'apportunity, it is unlikely that extending light rail service
to Los Gatos will ever get any priority.
Frankly, I'm not a big supporter of light rail. As a third-generation
valley resident who is involved in businesses that range from
broadcasting to construction, I would prefer a more flexible mass
transit system. But our region has selected light rail as the long-term
alternative to the automobile and committed hundreds of millions of
dollars to it. Los Gatos must now do its part to support the regional
light rail system. Projects like Los Gatos Gateway are the key to making
it work.
If mass transit works the way our town officials have always said it
will, then ultimately, by supporting light rail now, we will lessen our
reliance on the automobile in the future. If we fail to take what is
probably the only chance we will ever get to endorse the system, we will
probably assure a continuing dependence on our cars and ever-worsening
traffic congestion.
This kind of project is good for Los Gatos and the valley as a whole.
The Sobrato family is the kind of local developer that we should
support They .We.here. They will pass by this project the rest of
their careers. They will build it right.
Jim Levitt
jel@quakesafe.com <mailtoJelgquakesafe.com>.
14 Glenridge Ave.
Los Gatos
file://C:\WNDOWS\TEMP\GW}00006.HTM Few;,,-; t n
06
VASONA'RANCH
P. O Box 320564 S E P 1'i 201 0 1
Los Gatos, CA 95032-0109 r: rC1
September 19, 2001
The Honorable James Lyon, Chair
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Sobrato Development Company Proposal
Los Gatos Gateway
Dear Chair Lyon and Commission:
Our property, which is located at 14561 Winchester Boulevard - directly south and
west across Highway 85 and Winchester Boulevard from the Sobrato site - has
been owned by our family since 1912.
The Sobrato project, as envisioned, would provide a welcome addition to the
neighborhood. It would replace a barren, pseudo-industrial site with a first-class,
aesthetically pleasing, office/research and development complex, as. well as
providing much-needed housing including below market rate units. The planned
VTA station at the site further maximizes the utilization of resources.
In view of the above, our family supports Sobrato Development Company's Los
Gatos Gateway project.
Sincerely,
4u;y'LaMar'
~c?- i a-cuu i ! :44 r KUAt-LUUK I 1Jt +408-354-5854 {
COUC~TSIDECLUB
September 14, 2001
T-128 P.002/002 F-172
Members of the Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA
95030
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I have had the opportunity to review the planned development of 14300-14350 Winchester
Boulevard by Sobrato Development Companies, and would like to state Counside Club's support for
approval of the project. This type of development fits well in the area and supports a much needed
community resource in the eventual cxteasion of light rail into the Los Gatos Gateway. We encourage the
Planning Commissioners to consider the application and we look forward to seeing the improvement to area
,that the development will bring.
Sincerely,
Natalie A. Valdez
General Manager
cc; Eric Morley, Morley Hunter Group, Inc.
John Shenk, Sobrato Development Companies
Jim Gerber, Western Athletic Clubs
Mindy Steiner, Western Athletic Clubs
14675 Winchester boulevard - Los Gatos, CA 95030
Phones 408-39S-7111 • Fax 408-354-5854