Loading...
Attachment 01TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: August 10, 2016 PREPARED BY: APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: APPLICANT/ CONTACT PERSON: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICATION SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATION: PROJECT DATA: Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner jarmer@losgatosca.gov Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 Environmental Impact Report EIR-16-001 ITEM NO: 3 401-409 Alberto Way (Located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. The westerly rear of the site is bordered by a wooded strip of land and the on -ramp to northbound State Route 17. Access to the project site is provided on Alberto Way.) Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC CWA Realty Requesting approval to demolish three existing office buildings and construct two new, two-story office buildings with underground parking on property zoned CH. APN 529-23-018. DEEMED COMPLETE: July 14, 2016 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: January 14, 2017 Approval subject to recommended conditions. General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Applicable Plans & Standards: Parcel Size: Surrounding Area: Mixed Use Commercial CH Restricted Commercial Highway Commercial Design Guidelines 93,573 sq. ft. Existing Land Use General Plan 1 Zoning North j Residential Medium Density Residential I R-M:5-12 West South State Highway Ramps NA Mixed Use Commercial NA CH :PD: AHOZ ; Commercial East ' Commercial Mixed Use Commercial CH:PD East ? Residential Medium Density Residential R-M:5-12 ATTACHMENT 1 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2 401-409 Alberto Way Project August 10, 2016 CEQA: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for the project. FINDINGS: • As required by CEQA for certifying the Environmental Impact Report. ■ As required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code for granting a Conditional Use Permit. • That the proposed project is consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines. • As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of an existing structure. CONSIDERATIONS: ■ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application_ ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. EXHIBITS: Previously received under separate cover: 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report Received with this Staff Report: 2. Location Map 3. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages) 4. Required CEQA Findings of Fact (24 pages) 5. Recommended Conditions of Approval (15 pages) 6. Letter of Justification/Project Description (15 pages), received July 15, 2016 7. Project Construction Details (three pages), received August 3, 2016 8. Letter of Outreach Conducted (40 pages), received February 10, 2016 9. Second Letter of Neighborhood Outreach (26 pages), received August 3, 2016 10. Consulting Arborist's Report (41 pages), dated September 26, 2015 11. Architectural Consultant's First Report (five pages), received September 10, 2015 12. Architectural Consultant's Final Report (five pages), received March 18, 2016 13. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Meeting minutes, June 10, 2015 meeting (four pages) 14. Public Comments 15. Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated June 29, 2016 16. Development Plans (37 pages), received July 15, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3 401-409 Alberto Way Proiect August 10, 2016 BACKGROUND: The project site is an approximately 2.15-acre parcel developed with three, two-story wood frame multi -tenant office buildings with on -grade parking and daylighted basement areas beneath the buildings. The existing buildings on the site were constructed in the mid-1960s and comprise approximately 31,000 square feet. The existing buildings on -site are 24 to 35 feet in height. The project vicinity contains a multi -family residential development located to the north of the project site. Multi -family housing, office, and a hotel are located to the east (across Alberto Way). Los Gatos -Saratoga Road and a hotel are located to the south of the project site and an on -ramp to northbound State Route 17 is located west of the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The project site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. The westerly rear of the site is bordered by a wooded strip of land and the on -ramp to northbound State Route 17. Access to the project site is provided on Alberto Way. B. Project Summary The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Architecture & Site application to demolish the three existing office buildings (31,000 square feet total) and construction of two new office buildings (91,965 square feet total) with two levels of underground parking. C. Zoning Compliance New office buildings approved or constructed after May 1, 2006, are permitted in the CH Zoning District subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. ANALYSIS: A. Project Summary The proposed project is the redevelopment of the project site with demolition of existing site improvements and the development of two new, steel frame, two-story buildings totaling 91,965 square feet over a two -level, below -grade parking garage. Site improvements would include an onsite employee amenity area, visitor parking, new landscaping, and a variety of energy efficient and/or sustainable interior and exterior building elements. The project is proposed to attain a LEED Silver certification. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4 401-409 Alberto Way Project August 10, 2016 The two proposed buildings are referred to as Building A and Building B. Building A would have a total building area of 47,800 square feet and Building B would have a total building area of 45,000 square feet, for a total of 91,965 square feet. As the three existing two-story buildings on the project site total approximately 31,000 square feet of building area, the proposed project would result in an increase of approximately 61,000 square feet of commercial square footage on the project site. Site development would require demolition of all existing site improvements. The majority of the project site would be excavated to an estimated depth of approximately 20 feet to accommodate the proposed underground parking garage. B. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee The proposed redevelopment of the site was presented to the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee on June 10, 2015. At that meeting the CDAC discussed the proposed use, traffic, parking, architecture, and site design. Meeting minutes are included as Exhibit 13. C. Conditional Use Permit In order to grant approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed new office building, the deciding body must make the following findings:. 1. The proposed use of the property is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare; 2. The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the zone; 3. The proposed use would not be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare; and 4. The proposed use of the property is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of the Town Code. In regards to the first finding, the proposed use would be considered desirable in that the office buildings would replace the existing office buildings on -site and provide necessary uses and services for the community. As required by finding two, the proposed application will continue to provide office uses in one of the few small mixed -use commercial areas of Town and the zone allows office. In regards to the third finding, the existing and proposed office use are not detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare. In regards to the final finding, the proposed use is in harmony with the General Plan and Town Code as addressed in the discussion in Sections D and F below. The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may deny a conditional use permit for a new office building if any of the following findings are made: 1. The proposed use of the property is not in harmony with specific provisions or objectives of the general plan and the purposes of the Town Code; Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5 401-409 Alberto Way Project August 10, 2016 2. The proposed use will detract from the existing balance and diversity of businesses in the commercial district in which the use is proposed to be located; 3. The proposed use would create an over -concentration of similar types of businesses; Or 4. The proposed use will detract from the existing land use mix and high urban design standards including uses that promote continuous pedestrian circulation and economic vitality. D. Zoning The proposed project meets the required setbacks, lot coverage and height requirements for the CH zone. The proposed land coverage would be 49.6 percent of the site and the maximum height would be 35 feet, both of which are consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designation for the site which allows up to 50 percent land coverage and a 35-foot height limit. The proposed 39-foot high entry features will exceed the maximum 35-foot height limit, but are allowed under Section 29.10.090 of the Town Code "Height restriction, exception." This section states that "Towers, spires ... similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances which are not used for human activity or storage may be higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone." E. Design and Compatibility The Town's Architectural Consultant reviewed the project to provide recommendations regarding architecture and neighborhood compatibility. The initial review (Exhibit 11), dated September 10, 2015, included concerns over the large scale of the proposed project and the relationship of the buildings' design, scale, and character to the smaller scale neighbors. Of particular concern were the uninterrupted two-story walls and tall entry features. Following the initial report staff arranged a meeting (November 2015) between staff, the Consulting Architect, and the applicant's design team to discuss possible changes to resolve these concerns. Revisions were made in response to this discussion, including: • Setbacks of second floor mass were increased in several locations; • Horizontal elements were added to interrupt vertical entry features; and • Revisions to the roof form to replace all flat roof elements, including the entry features to reduce the apparent height. The Consulting Architect then reviewed the revised designs and provided a follow-up report (Exhibit 12), dated March 18, 2016. Though there are still portions of the proposed buildings, including the east facade of Building B, which maintain the full two-story height at the setback line, the facade is closest to the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos- Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 6 401-409 Alberto Way Project August 10, 2016 Saratoga Road, which provides a more commercial context and the report concluded that with the new revisions, "the design is well done and sympathetic to the other uses and structures in the immediate neighborhood." F. General Plan The 2020 General Plan land use designation for the site is Mixed -Use Commercial. This designation allows for up to 50 percent land coverage with a 35-foot height limit. This designation permits a mixture of retail, office, and residential in a mixed -use setting, along with lodging, service, auto -related businesses, non -manufacturing industrial uses, recreational uses, and restaurants. Projects developed under this designation shall maintain the small town, residential scale and natural environments of adjacent residential neighborhoods, as well as provide prime orientation to arterial street frontages and proper transitions and buffers to adjacent residential properties. As discussed above, staff had initial concerns about the proposed project's compatibility with the scale of the adjacent buildings. The revisions orient the buildings so that they have lower impacts on the adjacent residential uses with single -story elements and a significant setback of Building A from Alberto Way. The more prominent elements of the new buildings, specifically the Alberto Way facade of Building B, is kept to the corner of the lot closest to the other commercial uses and the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. G. Parking and Traffic The proposed project includes 390 parking spaces on the site. The Town Code parking regulations require one parking space per 250 square feet for office space, which would be 368 spaces for the proposed project. The majority of the parking spaces, 383, would be located in the proposed below -grade, 156,200-square foot underground parking facility. Five standard parking spaces, one accessible parking space, and one van accessible parking space would be provided at grade. The project also includes 20 short-term bicycle parking spaces and 20 long -tam bicycle parking spaces. In preparation for the environmental review of this project a Transportation Impact Analysis was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (Appendix H of the EIR, available online at http://www.losgatosca.gov/401-409AlbertoWav). The report was reviewed by the Town's traffic engineer, traffic consultant, and environmental consultant. The purpose of the transportation impact analysis was to identify any potential traffic impacts from the additional office space proposed. The report found that the proposed project would not cause significant impact in accordance with CEQA and the Town's traffic impact standards. In addition to the calculation of trip generation and impacts to intersection level of service, the report provides recommendations on operational issues, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, site access and circulation, and parking. The report provides recommendations on these topics including: Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 7 401-409 Alberto Way Project August 10, 2016 • An extension to the length of the left turn lane from Los Gatos -Saratoga Road to Alberto Way; • Restriping of Alberto Way to create a dedicated right turn lane at the intersection with Los Gatos -Saratoga Road; • Upgrading the traffic signal to interconnect with the signal at Los Gatos -Saratoga Road and Los Gatos Boulevard; • Bike box at the intersection and new sidewalks with a landscape buffer; and • Removal of existing street parking between the two new driveways to allow for clear sightlines. Although the report concludes that the proposed project would not have a significant impact, it has recommended improvement measures (listed above and within the EIR) for reducing the impacts due to increase in project trips. In addition, staff has included in the conditions of approval requiring a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, to be prepared by the developer and approved by staff. H. Trees The Town's Consulting Arborist conducted a site survey and provided a report dated September 26, 2015 (Exhibit 10). The project proposes to remove all on -site trees. The report also assesses six trees labeled as "debatable" that are located along or just over the property line, and two large coast live oaks that are off site but close enough to the site to require protective fencing. Most of the trees contained in the Caltrans right-of-way to the west and south of the site are not included in this survey, but are proposed to remain and maintain the visual screening of the site from those sides. i. Environmental Review An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project. As part of the environmental review process a number of technical reports were prepared, including air quality and GHG modeling, an arborist report, Phase I Environmental. Site Assessment, noise and vibration, geotechnical, storm water management, and traffic analyses. Reports that were prepared by outside consultants were peer reviewed by Town Consultants. The Notice of Preparation was distributed on December 14, 2015, for a 30-day comment period ending January 15, 2016. A scoping meeting was held on January 12, 2016. Comments received are included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR. The Notice of Availability for review of the Draft EIR (DEIR) was released on April 29, 2016, with the 45-day public review period ending on June 13, 2016. On June 8, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to accept comment on the DEIR. Verbal comments were received from one individual (who also submitted written comments). Written comments on the DEIR were received from two public agencies and eight individuals (including the project applicant). The Response to Comrnents/Final EIR was completed on June 29, 2016 (see Exhibit 15). Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 8 401-409 Alberto Way Project August 10, 2016 A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared as required by CEQA (see Exhibit 15). The MMRP includes all mitigation measures and which department(s) is/are responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is properly implemented. All mitigation measures are also included in the conditions of approval (Exhibit 5). PUBLIC COMMENTS: Written notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the property and property owners and occupants that access their properties via Alberto Way. A number of written comments have been received regarding the proposed project (see Exhibit 14). Many of the comments submitted in review of the Draft EIR were actually comments on the project. All of the comments can be found within the Final EIR (Exhibit 15). The applicant held seven community meetings between September 2015 and January 2016 and five additional meetings in July and August 2016. Details of the community outreach are included in Exhibit 8 and 9. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: A. Summary The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Architecture & Site application to demolish the three existing office buildings (31,000 square feet total) and construct two new office buildings (91,965 square feet total) with two levels of underground parking. The EIR prepared for the project found no significant environmental impacts from the operation of or construction of the proposed project. Though staff has some concerns about the project's scale and relationship to the neighboring buildings, in particular at the comer of Building B where it is closest to Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, the recommendation is for approval as the applicant has responded to the recommendations of the Town's Consulting Architect to refine the original design and address these issues. B. Recommendation Based on the analysis above, staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Architecture and Site application subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit 5). If the Planning Commission finds merit with the proposed project, it should: I. Adopt the CEQA Findings of Fact (Exhibit 4) 2. Certify the Final EIR and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 15); Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 9 401-409 Alberto Way Project August 10, 2016 3. Make the required findings as required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code for granting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (Exhibit 3) (Note: if the application is approved the findings for denial will be removed); 4. Make the required finding that the project is in compliance with the Commercial Design Guidelines; 5. Make the findings required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of an existing structure (Exhibit 2); 6. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 3); and 7. Approve Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 and Architecture & Site Application S-15-056 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 5, and the plans in Exhibit 16. If the Commission has concerns with the proposed use, it can: 1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or 2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or 3. Deny the application and make the required findings for denial (Exhibit 3) (Note: if the application is denied the provided findings for approval would be removed from Exhibit 3). rared b T � Y: Jennifer Armer, AICP Associate Planner JP:JA:sr cc: Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC, 525 Middlefield Road, Ste. 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 N.1DEV\PC REPORTS120161A1hertoWay401-409-DEIR.docx Approved by: Joel Paulson, AICP Community Development Director This Page Intentionally Left Blank 401 - 409 Alberto Way This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION —August 10, 2016 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 401-409 Alberto Way Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 Environmental Impact Report EIR-16-001 Requesting approval to demolish three existing office buildings and construct two new, two-story office buildings with underground parking on property zoned CH. APN 529-23- 018. APPLICANT: Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: CWA Realty FINDINGS Required finding for CEQA: • An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed development. The Planning Commission must certify the EIR, make findings of fact, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Required findings for a Conditional Use Permit: ■ As required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code for granting a Conditional Use Permit: The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a conditional use permit when specifically authorized by the provisions of the Town Code if it finds that: (1) The proposed use would be considered desirable in that the office buildings would replace the existing office buildings on -site and provide necessary uses and services for the community; and (2) The proposed application will continue to provide office uses in one of the few small mixed -use commercial areas of Town and the zone allows office; and (3) The existing and proposed office use are not detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare; and (4) The proposed use is in harmony with the General Plan and Town Code. Required findings to deny a Conditional Use Permit application: • As required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code for denying a Conditional Use Permit: The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may deny a conditional use permit for a new office building if any of the following findings are made: (1) The proposed use of the property is not in harmony with specific provisions or objectives EXHIBIT 3 of the general plan and the purposes of the Town Code; (2) The proposed use will detract from the existing balance and diversity of businesses in the commercial district in which the use is proposed to be located; (3) The proposed use would create an over -concentration of similar types of businesses; or (4) The proposed use will detract from the existing land use mix and high urban design standards including uses that promote continuous pedestrian circulation and economic vitality. Commercial Design Guidelines: ■ The proposed buildings are consistent with applicable provisions of the Commercial Design Guidelines. Required finding for the demolition of an existing structure: • As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of an existing structure: 1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the demolition does not include any residential buildings. 2. The existing structure has no architectural or historical significance. 3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structure as it exists. 4. The economic utility of the structure is diminished because of age. CONSIDERATIONS Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications: ■ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project. N:1DE V IFIND INGS120 161A'LBERTO 40 1-409.DOCX CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT of the PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS for the 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT August 10, 2016 i £Xsim' 4 I. Introduction As approved by the Planning Commission on August 10, 2016, the 401-409 Alberto Way development ("the project") will involve the development of three two-story office buildings. Construction is anticipated to take place over a period of fourteen months. The Town of Los Gatos ("Town"), as lead agency, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the project in April 2016 (State Clearinghouse No. 2015122041)1. This document was circulated for public review for forty-five (45) days between April 29, 2016 and June 13, 2016, and public comment was received. The Town of Los Gatos prepared responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and published both comments and responses to comments in the June 29, 2016, Final EIR, which was posted on the Town's website on August 5, 2016. These findings have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and its implementing guidelines ("CEQA Guidelines") (Cal. Code Regs,, tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.). II. Project Description The project is the redevelopment of the project site with demolition of existing site improvements and the development of two new, steel frame, two-story buildings totaling 92,800 square feet over a two -level, below -grade parking garage. Site improvements will include an onsite employee amenity area, visitor parking, new landscaping, and a variety of energy efficient and/or sustainable interior and exterior building elements. The two new buildings are referred to as Building A and Building B. Building A will have a total building area of 47,800 square feet and Building B will have a total building area of 45,000 square feet, for a total of 92,800 square feet. As the three existing two-story buildings on the project site total approximately 31,000 square feet of building area, the project will result in an increase of approximately 61,800 square feet of commercial square footage on the project site. Although there are no future tenants for the new buildings identified at the time of preparation of this EIR, the buildings are anticipated to house a variety of professional office uses similar to use of the existing buildings on the site. The project will install 390 vehicle parking spaces on the site, compliant with the Town's Municipal Code. The majority of the parking spaces, 383, will be located in the below -grade, 156,200 square - 'See Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Section 15367 for a definition of "lead agency." 2 foot parking facility. Five standard parking spaces, one accessible parking space, and one van accessible parking space will be provided at grade. The project will include 20 short-term bicycle parking spaces and 20 long-term bicycle parking spaces. The land coverage will be 49.6 percent of the site and the maximum height will be 35 feet, both of which are consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designation for the site which allows up to 50 percent land coverage and a 35-foot height limit. While the front entry to each of the proposed new commercial buildings includes a tower above the main entrance which exceeds the otherwise maximum 35-foot roof level, the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code 29.10.090 allows exceptions to height restrictions for towers, spires, and other architectural features to exceed maximum building height provided that these areas are inaccessible to human activity or storage. The project's tower areas would be closed off such that these areas would not be accessible, habitable, or visible from the interior of the building. Therefore, the tower areas would be in compliance with Municipal Code 29.10.090. Site development will require demolition of all existing site improvements. The majority of the project site will be excavated to an estimated depth of approximately 20 feet to accommodate the subterranean parking garage. The project site has a Mixed -Use Commercial General Plan land use designation which permits a mixture of retail, office, and residential uses in a mixed -use setting. Projects developed under this designation are intended to maintain the small-town, residential scale and natural environments of adjacent residential neighborhoods, as well as provide prime orientation to arterial street frontages and proper transitions and buffers to adjacent residential properties. The project site is zoned CH- Restricted Commercial Highway. Allowable uses include retailing, personal service businesses, service businesses necessary for the conduct of households, office uses, and limited manufacturing uses. The proposed project is for the construction of office buildings which consistent with the Los Gatos Zoning Code's allowable uses. As the project will be consistent with the intent of the General Plan land use designation of Mixed - Use Commercial for the site and with the CH — Restricted Commercial Highway zoning, no amendment to the General Plan or Zoning Code will be required to approve the project. A. Changes to the DEAR Changes were made to the Draft EIR after the public review period for the Draft EIR, reflected in the Final EIR, and included in the project as approved by the Planning Commission on August 10, 2016. The modifications to the Draft EIR were primarily grammatical and spelling corrections. Some substantive text additions and/or clarifications were added to the Aesthetics, Air Quality, and Traffic section; however, these modifications did not alter the conclusion that the project will result 3 in less -than -significant impacts associated with these environmental issues. Section 3.0, Changes to the Draft EIR, in the Final EIR presents a full summary of all changes made to the Draft EIR. B. Location and Current Use The project site is an approximately 2.15-acre parcel located at 401 — 409 Alberto Way on the northwest comer of Los Gatos — Saratoga Road and Alberto Way in the Town of Los Gatos in Santa Clara County (Assessor's Parcel No. 529-23-018). Alberto Way is a two-lane dead-end street that parallels State Route 17 and also serves as the easternmost boundary of the project site. The westerly rear of the site is bordered by a wooded strip of land and the on -ramp to northbound. State Route 17. Access to the project site is provided via three driveways on Alberto Way. The project site is developed with three, two-story wood frame multi -tenant office buildings with on - grade parking and daylighted basement areas beneath the buildings. The existing buildings on the site were constructed in the mid-1960s and comprise approximately 31,000 square feet. Existing buildings on the site are 24 to 35 feet in. height. Parking is currently provided with paved surface lots. The site is relatively level and areas of landscaping are located throughout the site. C. Purpose and Objectives CEQA Guidelines section 15124 requires that the "Project Description" portion of a Draft EIR set forth "[a] statement of the objectives sought by the project." The Draft EIR for the project identified the following "project objectives." • Redevelop the site by removing the now obsolete, aging structures and replacing them with new, two-story Class A steel office buildings utilizing energy efficient, recycled and sustainable building materials that meet the standards of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). • Incorporate high -quality building architecture with design features that both blend with and compliment the aesthetics, scale, architecture, and character of the surrounding land uses. • Provide a building type that satisfies the needs, desires, and market demand for high-tech office users in Class A office space (e.g. larger floor plates, operationally sustainable/functional buildings, energy efficient systems, and onsite employee amenities). • Provide for a redeveloped site that fully complies with all applicable General Plan Goals and Policies, as well as applicable standards and guidelines established by the Municipal Code. • Create an interactive pedestrian oriented space that is attractive to future employees, tenants, and visitors to the site. 4 • Retain and augment additional planting to the grove of trees along Los Gatos- Saratoga Road and the freeway on -ramp. • Through redevelopment of the site, create an opportunity for enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the existing Town network. • Utilize building setbacks, landscaping and architectural treatments (materials, colors, and surfaces) to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. III. Environmental Review Process and Project Approval The Town distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a 30-day comment period from April 29, 2016 to June 13, 2016 (see Draft EIR, Appendix A) thereby notifying responsible agencies, trustee agencies, adjacent local agencies, transportation planning agencies, the public, and other interested parties of the scoping period and giving them the opportunity to transmit their concerns and comments on the scope and content of the Draft EIR. On April 29, 2016, the Town published the Draft EIR for the project, commencing a forty-five (45) day public review period that ended on June 13, 2016. On August 5, 2016, the Town issued the proposed Final EIR for consideration by the Town's Planning Commission. On August 10, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the project. After hearing public testimony and deliberating, the Commission approved the project. IV. Record of Proceedings In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e), the record of proceedings for the Town of Los Gatos' decision on the project includes the following documents:. • The April 2016 Draft EIR and its appendices; • The June 2016 Final EIR and its appendices; • All documents cited or referenced in the Draft and Final EIRs; • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; • All fmdings and resolutions adopted by the Town of Los Gatos in connection with the project and all documents cited or referred to therein; 5 • All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the Town of Los Gatos relevant to the Town's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the Town's action on the project; • All documents submitted to the Town by the applicant, by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the project, up through the close of the final public hearing on project before the Planning Commission held on August 10, 2016; • Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of public meetings and public hearings held by the Town of Los Gatos in connection with the project; • Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the Town of Los Gatos at such public meetings and public hearings; • Matters of common knowledge to the Town of Los Gatos, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations; • Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan; • Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report; • Town of Los Gatos General Plan Update Background Report; • Los Gatos Town Codes; • Los Gatos Sustainability Plan; • Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and, • Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The documents constituting the record of proceedings are available for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public: from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Los Gatos Community Development Department at 110 East Main Street; from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Town Clerk office at 110 East Main Street; and during regular business hours, at the Town Library at 100 Villa Avenue. The custodian of these documents is the Community Development Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. The Town's decision makers have relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching their decisions on the Project even if not every document was formally presented to the decision makers. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the project files fall into one of two 6 categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the Town of Los Gatos was aware in approving the project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Ca1.App.3d 381, 391-392; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Ca1.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.) Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to the Town of Los Gatos staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the Planning Commission as final decision makers_ For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the Town's decisions relating to approval of the project. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browning Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Ca1.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155.) V. Findings Required Under CEQA Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to provide that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. This mandate to adopt findings is found in Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a). Under these provisions, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more aflame permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The second permissible finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the fording, and that such changes have been adopted by, or can and should be adopted by, such other agency. The third potential conclusion is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091). "[Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15364) 7 Here, as set forth in Table A, CEQA Findings, the Planning Commission has adopted the first permissible finding with respect to all significant effects identified in the EIR, concluding that all such effects can be mitigated to less -than -significant levels. The Planning Commission therefore has no need to consider the feasibility of any project alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Ca1.App.3d 515, 521 (Laurel Hills); see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692, 730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 400-403.) Under CEQA, where the significant impacts of a project cannot be avoided or substantially lessened, either by mitigation measures or a project alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a "statement of overriding considerations" setting forth the specific reasons that the agency found the project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines, § 15093; Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b)). Here, however, as noted above, the Town of Los Gatos has identified and adopted feasible mitigation measures that mitigate all significant environmental impacts of the project to less -than -significant levels. Thus, just as the Town is not required to address the feasibility of alternatives, the Town is also not required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project. The Town recognizes the Final EIR incorporates information obtained and produced after the Draft EIR was completed, and that the Final EIR contains additions, clarifications, and modifications. The Town has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of this information, and finds that the Final EIR does not add significant new information to the Draft EIR that will require recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. The new information added to the EIR does not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed that the project sponsor declines to adopt and that will clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project. No information indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR. Thus, recirculation of the EIR is not required. The Town finds that the changes and modifications made to the EIR after the Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment do not individually or collectively constitute significant new information as described in Public Resources Code section 21092.1 or the CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Subdivision (a) of Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires lead agencies to "adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the 8 environment." For the project, the Town satisfied this obligation by preparing a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which is included as Section 4 in the Final EIR. The MMRP provides a list of all adopted project mitigation measures, identifies the parties responsible for implementing such measures, and identifies the timing for implementation and monitoring of each measure. The MMRP is being approved concurrently with the adoption of these Findings of Fact. VII. Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures The Draft EIR identified a number of potentially significant environmental effects (or impacts) caused or contributed to by the project. All of these effects can be mitigated to less than significant levels through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, all of which Town staff has determined remain necessary, in unchanged form, for the project as approved. The project thus will not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. The Town of Los Gatos' findings with respect to the project's significant and potentially significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth in the table attached to these findings (Table A to CEQA Findings). The findings set forth in the table are hereby incorporated herein by reference. This table does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Draft and Final EIRs. Instead, the table provides a summary description of each impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR or Final EIR and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos, and states the Town's findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Draft EIR and Final EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussions and analyses in those documents supporting the Final EIR's determinations regarding mitigation measures and the project's impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the Town of Los Gatos ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analyses and explanations in the Draft E1R and Final EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of those documents relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings. VIII. References EMC Planning Group. Final EIR 401-409'Alberto Way. June 2016. EMC Planning Group. Draft EIR 401-409 Alberto Way. April 2016. Architectural Technologies. A Planning Application for 401-409 Alberto Way. February 2016. 9 Table A. Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA Findings Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact Air Quality Inconsistency with AQ-1. Final plans for the proposed LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measures Clean Air Plan (S) buildings on the site shall be amended to include a requirement for low NOx heating systems to be installed in new buildings on the site. AQ-2. Final plans shall be amended to include a requirement for the installation of at least four electric charging stations prior to occupancy, with parking restricted to electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles, and at least one handicapped space shall be provided with access to a charging station. AQ-1 and AQ-2 will reduce this impact to a less - than -significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the FIR. Explanation: The project's site plan does not fully address several of the control measure requirements of the 2010 Clean Air Plan. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 require low NOx heating systems and installation of electric charging stations, which will implement the control measures lacking in the project's site plan and will eliminate conflicts with the 2010 Clean Air Plan. Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact (DEIR pp. 3-35 and 3-36) Construction Dust AQ-3. The project contractor shall LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure Adjacent to Sensitive implement basic dust control measures at AQ-3 will reduce this impact to a less -than - Receptors (S) all on -site and off -site Iocations where grading or excavation takes place. The project contractor shall implement additional dust control measures at all on- site and off -site locations where grading or excavation takes place within 200 feet of residential properties. Basic dust control measures: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered; c. All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Explanation: Construction of the project will take place adjacent to existing residences to the project site and will result in dust emissions (particulate matter) that could affect residents in this area. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 provides controls to limit dust from construction from being transported of site via wind erosion of unpaved surfaces or through soils tracked -out onto paved roads where particulate matter could enter the air through the motion of passing cars and trucks. Thus, AQ-3 will reduce impacts related to construction dust to a less-than- Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact sweepers at least once per day. The use of significant level. dry power sweeping is prohibited; d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph; e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; and f. The project contractor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding dust complaints. The project contractor will post a publicly visible sign with a contact telephone number for the disturbance coordinator. (DEIR, pp. 3-37- 3-38.) The disturbance coordinator shall respond and take correction action for any complaint received with 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact applicable regulations. g. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph; h. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast - germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established; and i. Unpaved roads shall be treated with a three to six inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. , Biological Resources Disturbance of Nesting Birds (PS) BIO-1. If noise generation, ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other construction activities begin during the nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), or if construction activities are suspended for at least two weeks and recommence during the nesting bird LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will reduce this impact to a less -than - significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2108I(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact season, then the project developer shall alterations have been required in, or incorporated retain a qualified biologist to conduct a into, the project that avoid the significant pre -construction survey for nesting birds. environmental effects as identified in the EIR. The survey shall be performed within Explanation: Construction activities performed suitable nesting habitat areas on and during nesting bird season could result in the direct adjacent to the site to ensure that no active loss of nests, including eggs and young, or the nests would be disturbed during project abandonment of an active nest. Mitigation Measure implementation. This survey shall be BIO-1 provides measures to reduce direct and conducted no more than two weeks prior indirect disturbance of active bird nests during to the initiation of construction of the project, thus reducing impacts to disturbance/construction activities. A nesting birds to a less -than -significant level. report documenting survey results and plan for active bird nest avoidance (if needed) shall be completed by the qualified biologist and submitted to the (DEIR, p. 3-57.) Town of Los Gatos for review and approval prior to disturbance and/or construction activities. If no active bird nests are detected during the survey, then project activities can proceed as scheduled. However, if an active bird nest of a native species is Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact detected during the survey, then a plan for bird nest avoidance shall be prepared to determine and clearly delineate an appropriately -sized, temporary protective buffer area around each active nest, depending on the nesting bird species, existing site conditions, and type of proposed disturbance and/or construction activities. The protective buffer area around an active bird nest is typically 75- 250 feet, determined at the discretion of the qualified biologist and in compliance with applicable project permits. To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an active bird nest will occur, no disturbance and/or construction activities shall occur within the protective buffer area(s) until the juvenile birds have fledged (left the nest), and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by the qualified biologist. Cultural Resources Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure , Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact Disturbance of CR-1. Prior to the issuance of a grading LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure Archaeological permit, the project's grading plan shall CR-1 will reduce this impact to a less -than - Resources (PS) indicate the requirement for a qualified archaeologist to be present at all times during grading and excavation activities on the project site. If archaeological resources are uncovered, work will not continue until the resources have been removed and/or recorded. The Planning Division of the Community Development significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Department shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of these mitigation measures. Costs shall be the responsibility of the developer(s). Explanation: Because unknown significant buried archaeological 1 resources could be located on the project site, and the project involves deep excavations, the potential exists for disturbance of these resources during grading or excavation activities. Mitigation Measure CR-1 will require monitoring by a qualified archeologist during grading and excavation and in the event of a discovery of an archeological resource, work is to be halted until the resource(s) have been removed and/or recovered. Thus, the potentially significant impact to archaeological resources will be reduced to Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact a less -than -significant level. (DEIR, pp. 3-72-3-73.) Disturbance of Human CR-2. If human remains are found during LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure Remains (PS) construction activities, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the archeological monitor and the coroner of Santa Clara County are contacted. If it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American CR-2 will reduce this impact to a less -than - significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that this mitigation measure be adopted. The Town of Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the Explanation: The project site is not known to contain human remains, but excavation during construction of project improvements could result in disturbance of unknown human remains. Mitigation Measure CR-2 requires that excavation or disturbance of the site be halted if human remains are found during construction activities until a qualified archaeological monitor and coroner are contacted. Mitigation Measure CR-2 also includes specific requirements if the remains are determined Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact human remains and associated grave to be Native American including contacting the goods as provided in Public Resources Native American Heritage Commission. Thus, Code section 5097.98. The landowner or implementation Mitigation Measure CR-2 will his authorized representative shall rebury reduce the potential impacts to human remains to a the Native American human remains and less -than -significant level. associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a Iocation not subject to further disturbance if: a) the (DEIR, pp. 3-73- 3-74.) Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department shall be Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact responsible for ensuring the implementation of these mitigation measures. Costs shall be the responsibility of the developer(s) Geology and Soils Susceptibility to Seismic Ground Shaking and Liquefaction (PS) GEO-1. Prior to the approval of building permits for the project site, the applicant shall be responsible for demonstrating to the approval of the Building Official that proposed design plans are in conformance with all current California Building Code standards and that all design measures and site preparation recommendations as suggested in the project's geotechnical exploration report prepared by ENGEO (2015) have been incorporated into the project's final design. LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 will reduce this impact to a less -than - significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Explanation: Ground shaking from earthquakes could be very strong within the region and thus at the project site. The project site is located in an area identified in the General Plan EIR and the Seismic Hazards Zone Map as a seismically -induced liquefaction zone; thus, sufficiently strong seismic Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact shaking could result in liquefaction. Building codes and engineering standards have been developed to address the forces to which buildings are subjected during earthquakes, and buildings constructed in accordance with these codes and standards should withstand earthquakes without severe damage or significant numbers of injuries or deaths. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires the applicant to i demonstrative compliance with current California Building Code Standards in addition to all recommendations from the geotechnical report prepared for the project, thus, reducing potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. i (DEIR, pp. 3-80- 3-81.) Soil Instability due to GEO-1. Prior to the approval of building LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure Deep Excavations (PS) permits for the project site, the applicant shall be responsible for demonstrating to the approval of the Building Official that proposed design plans are in conformance with all current California Building Code standards and that all design measures and site preparation recommendations as GEO-1 will reduce this impact to a less -than - significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that this Mitigation Measure be adopted, The Town of Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact suggested in the project's geotechnical exploration report prepared by ENGEO into, the project that avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (2015) have been incorporated into the project's final design. Explanation: The project site is not located within, or near, a landslide hazard area, nor areas of other known soil instability. However, due to the large amount of excavation for the project there is the potential for soil instability. Mitigation Measure GEO-I requires implementation of the project's geotechnical report recommendations including adequate drainage for retaining walls, backfill specifications for wet sites, temporary shoring and dewatering measures, etc. Implementation of these measures during the construction and design process will reduce potential impacts related to soil instability to a less -than -significant level. (DEIR, pp. 3-80- 3-81.) Susceptibility to GEO-1. Prior to the approval of building LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure Expansive Soils (S) permits for the project site, the applicant shall be responsible for demonstrating to the approval of the Building Official that proposed design plans are in conformance with all current California Building Code GEO-1 will reduce this impact to a less -than - significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact standards and that all design measures and site preparation recommendations as suggested in the project's geotechnical exploration report prepared by ENGEO (2015) have been incorporated into the project's final design. Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Explanation: Testing preformed during the project's geotechnical exploration indicated a moderate expansive potential of project site soils. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires implementation of the project's geotechnical report recommendations including adequate drainage for retaining walls, backfill specifications for wet sites, temporary shoring and dewatering measures, etc. Implementation of these measures during the construction and design process of the project reduces potential impacts related to expansive soils to a less -than -significant level. (DEIR, pp. 3-80- 3-81.) Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potential to Release Hazardous Materials into the Environment HAZ-1.Prior to any demolition activities on the project site, an asbestos and lead- based paint survey shall be performed to LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 will reduce this impact to a less -than - significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact (PS) determine if any additional waste removal activities would be required. The selected project contractor shall implement all site specific measures and recommendations identified within the site's asbestos and lead -based survey. Compliance with the asbestos and lead -based paint survey during site demolition activities shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Explanation: The existing office buildings may contain asbestos and/or lead -based paint which could be released into the environment during demolition. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires an asbestos and lead -based paint survey to be completed prior to any demolition activities and, if present, implementation of recommendations contained therein, which will reduce potential impacts related to the release of hazardous materials to a less -than -significant level. (DEIR, p. 3-105.) Traffic and Transportation Potential to Increase Hazards due to Design T-3 Off site improvement plans shall show that parking on southbound Alberto LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure T- 3 will reduce this impact to a less -than -significant Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact Features Based on Site Way between the two project driveways level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section Access and Site shall be prohibited to ensure sight distance 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a), Distance (S) is not obscured. the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the E1R. Explanation: Parked vehicles block drivers° views at the south exit -only driveway, thereby obstructing visibility of southbound vehicles on Alberto Way, and block drivers' views of northbound vehicles at the north full -access driveway. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3 will prohibit parking between the two project driveways thereby reducing potential hazards related to blocked drivers' visibility to a less -than -significant level. Notes; LTS —Less-Than-Significant PS = Potentially Significant S = Significant Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. 20th CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL —August 10, 2016 401409 Alberto Wav Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 Environmental Impact Report EIR-16-001 Requesting approval to demolish three existing office buildings and construct two new, two-story office buildings with underground parking on property zoned CH. APN 529-23- 018. APPLICANT: Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: CWA Realty TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans and/or business operation shall be approved by the Community Development Director, DRC or the Planning Commission depending on the scope of the changes. 2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested. 3. SIGN PERMIT: A Sign Permit from the Los Gatos Community Development Department must be obtained prior to any changes to existing signs or installation of new signs. 4. CERTIFICATE OF USE AND OCCUPANCY: A Certificate of Use and Occupancy from the Los Gatos Community Development Department must be obtained prior to commencement of use. 5. BUSINESS LICENSE: A business license from the Town of Los Gatos Finance Department must be obtained prior to the commencement of any new or change of use. 6. LAPSE FOR DISCONTINUANCE: If the activity for which the Conditional Use Permit has been granted is discontinued for a period of one (1) year, the approval lapses pursuant to Section 29.20.340 of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. LEED CERTIFICATION: Prior to issuance of building permits and prior to final, the applicant shall provide documents showing progress towards and completion of LEED Silver certification. 8. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they arc needed for safety or security. 9. GENERAL: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site. 10. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 11. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations made by Deborah Ellis, identified in the Arborist's report dated September 26, 2015, on file in the Community Development Department. A Compliance EXHIBIT 5 Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the recommendations have or will be addressed. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable. 12. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing and other protection measures shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall remain through all phases of construction. Refer to tree fencing requirements and other protection measures identified in the Arborist Reports prepared by Deborah Ellis dated September 26, 2015, on file in the Community Development Department. Include a tree protection plan with the construction plans. 13. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double -staked using rubber tree ties. 14. WATER EFFECIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review. 15. LANDSCAPING: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy all landscaped must be complete. 16. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application. 17. SALVAGE OF BUILDING MATERIALS: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the developer shall provide the Community Development Director with written notice of the company that will be recycling the building materials. All wood, metal, glass, and aluminum materials generated from the demolished structure shall be deposited to a company which will recycle the materials. Receipts from the company(s) accepting these materials, noting the type and weight of materials, shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Town's demolition inspection. 18. AIR QUALITY 1: Final plans for the proposed buildings on the site shall be amended to include a requirement for low NOX heating systems to be installed in new buildings on the site. 19. AIR QUALITY 2: Final plans shall be amended to include a requirement for the installation of at least four electric charging stations prior to occupancy, with parking restricted to electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles, and at least one handicapped space shall be provided with access to a charging station. 20. AIR QUALITY 3: The project contractor shall implement basic dust control measures at all on -site and off -site locations where grading or excavation takes place. The project contractor shall implement additional dust control measures at all on -site and off -site locations where grading or excavation takes place within 200 feet of residential properties. Basic dust control measures: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered; c. All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph; e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; and f. The project contractor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding dust complaints. The project contractor will post a publicly visible sign with a contact telephone number for the disturbance coordinator, The disturbance coordinator shall respond and take correction action for any complaint received with 48 hours, The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. g. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph; h. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast -germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established, and i. Unpaved roads shall be treated with a three to six inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. 21. BIOLOGY 1: If noise generation, ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other construction activities begin during the nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), or if construction activities are suspended for at least two weeks and recommence during the nesting bird season, then the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre -construction survey for nesting birds. The survey shall be performed within suitable nesting habitat areas on and adjacent to the site to ensure that no active nests would be disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of disturbance/construction activities. A report documenting survey results and plan for active bird nest avoidance (if needed) shall be completed by the qualified biologist and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos for review and approval prior to disturbance and/or construction activities. If no active bird nests are detected during the survey, then project activities can proceed as scheduled. However, if an active bird nest of a native species is detected during the survey, then a plan for bird nest avoidance shall be prepared to determine and clearly delineate an appropriately -sized, temporary protective buffer area around each active nest, depending on the nesting bird species, existing site conditions, and type of proposed disturbance and/or construction activities. The protective buffer area around an active bird nest is typically 75- 250 feet, determined at the discretion of the qualified biologist and in compliance with applicable project permits. To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an active bird nest will occur, no disturbance and/or construction activities shall occur within the protective buffer area(s) until the juvenile birds have fledged (left the nest), and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by the qualified biologist. 22. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project's grading plan shall indicate the requirement for a qualified archaeologist to be present at all times during grading and excavation activities on the project site. If archaeological resources are uncovered, work will not continue until the resources have been removed and/or recorded. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of these mitigation measures. Costs shall be the responsibility of the developer(s). 23. CULTURAL RESOURCES 2: If human remains are found during construction activities, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the archeological monitor and the coroner of Santa Clara County are contacted. If it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of these mitigation measures. Costs shall be the responsibility of the developer(s). 24. GEOLOGY & SOILS 1: Prior to the approval of building permits for the project site, the applicant shall be responsible for demonstrating to the approval of the Building Official that proposed design plans are in conformance with all current California Building Code standards and that all design measures and site preparation recommendations as suggested in the project's geotechnical exploration report prepared by ENGEO (2015) have been incorporated into the project's final design 25. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1: Prior to any demolition activities on the project site, an asbestos and lead -based paint survey shall be performed to determine if any additional waste removal activities would be required. The selected project contractor shall implement all site specific measures and recommendations identified within the site's asbestos and lead -based survey. Compliance with the asbestos and lead -based paint survey during site demolition activities shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. 26. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC 1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the proposed project on the site, the applicant shall enter into a construction agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to implement improvements for the restriping of Alberto Way to include a dedicated right -turn lane and a shared left -through lane. Costs for these improvements will be determined by the Town's traffic consultant. 27. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC 2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the proposed project on the site, the applicant shall enter into a construction agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to provide a bike box on Alberto Way at the intersection with Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, as well as the detached sidewalks with a landscape buffer on Alberto Way along the project site frontage, and on the north side of Los Gatos -Saratoga Road between Alberto Way and the State Route 17 northbound on - ramp. 28, TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC 3: Off -site improvement plans shall show that parking on southbound Alberto Way between the two project driveways shall be prohibited to ensure sight distance is not obscured. 29. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney. 30. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. Building Division 31. PERMITS REQUIRED: A separate Building Permit will be required for the two level Parking Garage podium structure and a separate Building Permit shall be required for each office/commercial building. Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work as necessary. 32. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue -lined in full on the second sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. 33. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, size 24" x 36" minimum, 30" x 42" maximum. 34. BUILDING & SUITE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new building addresses to the Building Division prior to submitting for the building permit application process. 35. SOILS REPORT: A soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics. 36. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS: Obtain Building Department Demolition Applications and Bay Area Air Quality Management District Applications from the Building Department Service Counter. Once the Demolition Forms have been completed, all signatures obtained, and written verification from PG&E that all utilities have been disconnected, return the completed Forms to the Building Department Service Counter with the Air District's 31# Certificate(s), PG&E verification, and three (3) sets of Site Plans showing all existing structures, existing utility service lines such as water, sewer, and PG&E. No demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a Permit from the Town. 37. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed four (4) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent property or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall conform to Cal/OSHA regulations. 38. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report and that the building pad elevations and on -site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the following items: a. Building pad elevation b. Finish floor elevation c. Foundation corner locations d. Retaining Walls 39. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue -lined (sticky -backed) onto a sheet of the plans. 40. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole. 41. FIRE ZONE: This project will require Class A Roof Assemblies. 42. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled -out, signed by all requested parties, and be blue -lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building 43. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (or Clean Bay Sheet 24x36) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second or third page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print for a fee. 44. NPDES-C.3 DATA FORMS: Copies of the NPDES C.3 Data Forms (updated based on the final construction drawings) must be blue -lined in full onto the Plans. In the event that this data differs significantly from any Planning approvals, the Town may require recertification of the project's storm water treatment facilities prior to release of the Building Permit. 45. GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS: This project must, at a minimum, be in compliance with the Nonresidential Mandatory Measures of the current California Green Building Standards Code (CGBSC) and all subsequent Amendments. a. Bicycle Parking: Per CGBSC Section 5.106.4.1.1 provide twenty (20) permanently anchored bicycle racks (= 5% of motorized vehicle parking) for short-term bicycle parking or ten (10) two -bike capacity racks. Per CGBSC Section 5.106.4.2 provide secure bicycle lockers for twenty (20) bicycles (= 5% of motorized vehicle parking). Note: Providing showers, changing rooms, and clothes lockers in each building is a voluntary amenity to be considered. b. Designated Parking: Per CGBSC Section 5.106.5.2 provide designated parking for any combination of low -emitting, fuel -efficient, and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in Table 5.106.5.2 which equals 8% of the proposed parking or a minimum of 32 spaces. c. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: Per CGBSC Section 5.106.5.3, during construction provide electric vehicle supply equipment and electrical components as listed to facilitate the future installation of (or provide for during construction) electric vehicle charging stations. Per CGBSC Table 5.106.5.3.3, 12 electric vehicle charging stations spaces are required for this project or 3% of the total parking spaces. 46. SITE ACCESSIBILITY: At least one accessible route within the boundary of the site shall be provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance that they serve. The accessible route shall, to the maximum extent feasible, coincide with the route for the general public. At least one accessible route shall connect all accessible buildings, facilities, elements and spaces that are on the same site. If access is provided for pedestrians from a pedestrian tunnel or elevated walkway, entrances to the buildings from each tunnel or walkway must be accessible. 47. ACCESSIBLE PARKING: The parking lots, as well as the parking structure, where parking is provided for the public as clients, guests or employees, shall provide handicap accessible parking. Accessible parking spaces serving a particular building shall be located on the shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessible entrance. In buildings with multiple accessible entrances with adjacent parking, accessible parking spaces shall be dispersed and located closest to the accessible entrances. 48. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building perrnit: a. Community Development/Planning Division: Jennifer Armer at (408) 399-5706 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: Mike Weisz at 395-5340 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010 d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 e. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (415) 771-6000 f. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance. 49. ADVISORY COMMENTS: a. Allowable Area calculations shall be provided for each building per California Building Code Chapter 5. b. Per California Building Code Section 1027.5 Exit Discharge Access to a public way, from the Shared Courtyard Amenity Area, it appears that there will be difficulty providing a direct and unobstructed access to the public way or the ability to provide a safe dispersal area in compliance with the Exception requirements. c. For the balconies, the occupant load will be calculated at 15 square feet per occupant. Please consider dividing the balconies with permanent railings to limit the balcony areas to less than 750 square feet in order to avoid the requirement for two compliant exits in anticipation of unknown future tenant improvement layouts. TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS: Engineering Division 50. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into stone drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. 51. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of approvals listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer 52. 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. It is the responsibility of the applicant/developer to obtain any necessary encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), SBC, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California Department of Transportation. Copies of any approvals or permits must be submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to releasing any permit. 53. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Developer or his representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on -site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Failure to do so will result in rejection of work that went on without inspection. 54. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 55. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required. 56. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. 57. INSPECTION FEES. Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of any Permit. 58. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California, and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval. 59. GRADING PERMIT: A Grading Permit will be required for all site grading and drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of the Town Grading Ordinance. The grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location, driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street is needed for grading within the building footprint. 60. TREE REMOVAL: A tree removal permit is required prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 61. 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: a. Retaining wall: top of wall elevations and locations. b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes. 62. RETAINING WALLS: A building pen -nit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E. Main Street, may be required for onsite retaining walls. Onsite walls are not reviewed or approved by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department_ 63. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE: A geotechnicaI investigation shall be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub -surface conditions at the site and to determine the potential for surface fault rupture on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, retaining walls, concrete slab -on -grade construction, excavation, drainage, on -site utility trenching and pavement sections. All recommendations of the investigation shall be incorporated into project plans. 64. SOILS REVIEW: 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. 65. 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 shall be documented in an "as -built" letter/report prepared by the applicants' soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy permit is granted. 66. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Exploration by ENGEO, Inc., dated July 17, 2015, and any subsequently required report or addendum. Subsequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review by the Tow-n's consultant and costs shall be borne by the applicant. 67. IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into an agreement to construct public improvements that are part of the development in a form acceptable to the Town in the amount of 100% (performance) and 100% (Iabor and materials) prior to issuance of any permit. Applicant shall provide two (2) copies of documents verifying the cost of the public improvements to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department. 68. JOINT TRENCH PLANS: Joint trench plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town prior to recordation of a map. The joint trench plans shall include street and/or site lighting and associated photometrics. A letter shall be provided by PG&E stating that public street light billing will by Rule LS2A, and that private lights shall be metered with billing to the homeowners association. Pole numbers, assigned by PG&E, shall be clearly delineated on the plans. 69. 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. All improvements shall be constructed per Town standards. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. a. Alberto Way: i. Install new curb, gutter, detached sidewalk with landscaped planting strip, street lights, signing, striping, and storm drainage as directed by the Town Engineer. ii. Remove and replace the existing pavement section along the project frontage with a traffic -appropriate engineered structural pavement section from centerline to the lip of gutter on the project (west) side. iii. Provide a 2-inch grind and overlay from centerline to the east side of the street/lip of gutter. iv. Provide two (2) travel lanes exiting Alberto Way: an exclusive right -turn lane and a shared left-thru lane. v. Install a bike box on Alberto Way at the intersection with Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. vi. Install ADA-compliant curb ramps at the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. b. Los Gatos -Saratoga Road: i. Install new curb, gutter, detached sidewalk with landscaped planting strip, street lights, signing, striping, and storm drainage as directed by the Town Engineer. ii. Install ADA-compliant curb ramps on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road at the SR-17 northbound ramp. iii. Provide a 2-inch grind and overlay from the median island to the new lip of gutter along the project frontage. iv. Widen the north side of Los Gatos -Saratoga Road and remove & replace the existing median island along eastbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road to provide for a future bike lane and a left -turn pocket, 200 feet in length, for eastbound Los -Gatos Saratoga Road traffic turning onto northbound Alberto Way. 70. ON -STREET PARKING: On -street parking along the project's Alberto Way frontage shall remain prohibited after the construction and installation of public improvements. 71. UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE DRAINAGE: Water from the underground parking garage shall not be discharged onto the public street. The applicant shall design a floor drainage system for the garage that collects all drainage and conveys runoff to the sanitary sewer system, NOT the storm drain system. 72. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code Section 27.50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from any and all utility service providers before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply approval for final alignment or design of these facilities. 73. DRIVEWAY APPROACH: The developer shall install two (2) Town standard commercial driveway approaches. The new driveway approaches shall be constructed per Town Standard Details and must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. 74. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION): Applicant shall upgrade existing traffic signal to current Town standards including, but not limited to, LED signal indication, LED pedestrian signal indication, LED safety lighting, ADA compliant pedestrian push buttons, 12" signal heads, Emtrac fire preemption device, video detection system, service pedestal, and traffic signal interconnect, as applicable. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. 75. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (STREET LIGHTS): Replace existing street light fixture with LED light fixture. Re -paint existing street light pole. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. 76. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (LOS GATOS-SARATOGA ROAD/ALBERTO WAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT): Extend the left turn lane in eastbound Los Gatos - Saratoga Road to 200 feet in length. Re -construct the median island and necessary roadway configuration to accommodate the extended left turn lane and to provide for future bike lane. Plans shall be prepared by developer's design consultants and submitted to Town Engineer for approval prior to construction. Applicant is required to designate necessary right of way for the required widening. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. 77. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (SIGNAL INTERCONNECT FROM ALBERTO WAY TO LOS GATOS BOULEVARD): Install signal interconnect conduit from Alberto Way to the existing empty conduit approximately 300 feet east of Alberto Way. Install new signal interconnect cable in the new and existing conduits from Alberto Way/Los Gatos -Saratoga Road to Los Gatos Boulevard/Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. 78. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN (TDM): The Applicant shall prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for Town approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The TDM shall include a TDM coordinator, applicable measures as bicycle facility provisions, transit passes and subsidies, carpool incentive, reserved car share parking, guaranteed ride home, electrical car charging stations, etc., and an annual monitoring report. 79. STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSPECTION FEES: Developer shall pay a fee in the amount of $2,000.00 for the Town's inspection of street lights and traffic signal related work installed by the developer. The fees shall be due at time of building permit application. 80. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements, including but not limiting to monument signs, fence, trees and hedges, shall abide by Town Code Sections 23.10.080, 26.10.065, and 29.40.030. 81. TRAFFIC STUDY: Any development of land use that generates greater traffic impacts than those assumed in the traffic study report may be required an updated traffic study in accordance with Town's traffic impact policy. 82. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: The developer shall pay the project's proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued. The fee shall be paid before issuance of a building permit. The traffic impact mitigation fee for this project using the current fee schedule is estimated at $615,400.00. The final fee with credits for complete street improvements along Los Gatos -Saratoga Road shall be calculated from the final plans using the rate schedule in effect immediately prior to building permit issuance. 83. CALTRANS: Prior to start of any work along or within Caltrans Rights -of -way and/or easement, the developer shall obtain necessary encroachment permits for the proposed work. Copy of approved encroachment permit is required to be submitted to Engineering Department prior to permit issuance. 84. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused. A sanitary sewer clean -out is required for each property at the property line or location specify by the Town. 85. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE: Drainage piping serving fixtures which have flood level rims less than twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the elevation of the next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through the backwater valve, unless first approved by the Building Official. The Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer overflow where the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater valve as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by the Town and maintain such device in a functional operation condition. Evidence of West Sanitation District's decision on whether a backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 86. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: Construction activities including but not limited to clearing, stockpiling, grading or excavation of land, which disturbs 1 acre or more which are part of a larger common plan of development which disturbs less than 1 acre are required to obtain coverage under the construction general permit with the State Water Resources Control Board. You are required to provide proof of WDID# and keep a current copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) on the construction site and shall be made available to the Town of Los Gatos Engineering and/or Building Department upon request. 87. STORMWATER DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF: All new development and redevelopment projects are subject to the Stormwater development runoff requirements. Every applicant shall submit a stormwater control plan and implement conditions of approval that reduce stormwater pollutant discharges through the construction, operation and maintenance of treatment measures and other appropriate source control and site design measures. Increases in runoff volume and flows shall be managed in accordance with the development runoff requirements 88. LANDSCAPING: In finalizing the landscape plan for the biotreatment area, it is recommended that the landscape architect ensure that the characteristics of the selected plants are similar to those of the plants listed for use in bioretention areas in Appendix D of the SCVURPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook. 89. AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS: The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of the stormwater filtration devices required to be installed on this project by Town's Stormwater Discharge Permit and all current amendments or modifications. The agreement shall specify that certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and shall specify device maintenance reporting requirements. The agreement shall also specify routine inspection requirements, permits and payment of fees. The agreement shall be recorded prior to release of any occupancy permits. 90. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN: Traffic control plan is required and must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any work in the public right-of-way. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures: a. Construction activities shall be strategically timed and coordinated to minimize traffic disruption for schools, residents, businesses, special events, and other projects in the area. The schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with the coordination of the trucking operation to minimize traffic disruption. b. Flag persons shall be placed at locations necessary to control one-way traffic flow. All flag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to coordinate the operation. c. Prior to construction, advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding one-way operation, specifying dates and hours of operation. 91. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior to approval from the Town Engineer. 92. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on or off -site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall work with the Town Building and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project site. This may include, but is not limited to provisions for the developer/owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with other significant projects in the area may also be required. 93. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 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. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. 94. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: Prior to the issuance of any permits, 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, materials storage area(s), construction trailer(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse locations. 95. EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Department of the Parks & Public Works Department. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for projects disturbing more than one acre. 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, drainage, erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of most current Santa Clara County NPDES MRP Permit. Monitoring for erosion and sediment control is required and shall be performed by the QSD or QSP as required by the Construction General Permit. Stormwater samples are required for all discharge locations and projects may not exceed limits set forth by the Construction General Permit Numeric Action Levels and/or Numeric Effluent Levels. A Rain Event Action Plan is required when there is a 50% or greater forecast of rain within the 48 hours, by the National Weather Service or whenever rain is imminent. The QSD or QSP must print and save records of the precipitation forecast for the project location area from (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/forecast) and must accompany monitoring reports and sampling test data. A Rain gauge is required on site. The Town of Los Gatos Engineering and Building Department will conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and. Stormwater ordinances and regulations. 96. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three times daily, or apply (non -toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on -site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one late -afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH. All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered. 97. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and. New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities. 98. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING - Flows to Bay" NPDES required language. On -site drainage systems for all projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry wells are to be used they shall be placed 10' minimum from adjacent property line and/or right of way. 99. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. N;1DEV\CONDITIONS120164Aiherto 401-409.doc This Page Intentionally Left Blank ACQUISIT1ONS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMEN July 23, 2015 REVISED October 5, 2015 REVISED February 10, 2016 REVISED July 13, 2016 Ms. Kendra Burch, Chair Los Gatos Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: Letter of Justification Dear Ms. Burch: Included in this letter is the justification for the efforts of LP Acquisitions to redevelop the 2.15-acre site known as 401-405 Alberto Way (APN 529-23-018), located at the northwest corner of Los Gatos - Saratoga Road (Highway 9) and Alberto Way. Our Justification Letter includes the response to the comments we received at both the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee ("CDAC") review, as well as the Town Staff comments received during the Technical Project Review meetings held on August 19, 2015, October 28, 2015 and March 16, 2016. Particular emphasis has been afforded to describe the manner in which our project complies with the Town's 2020 General Plan, as well as the Sustainability Plan (2012). Our proposed project includes the demolition of the three, three-story, wood -framed office structures (-30,000 square feet), as well as all appurtenant site improvements and replacement with two new, steel frame, 2-story buildings totaling 91,965 square feet. Parking for employees and visitors will be provided on two levels of underground parking (383 subterranean parking spaces) and seven (7) surface parking spaces. Site development would include an onsite employee amenity area, visitor parking, new landscaping and a variety of energy efficient and sustainable interior and exterior building elements. As described in the paragraphs that follow, development of the site will fully comply with all applicable Town General Plan Goals and Policies, as well as applicable standards and guidelines established by the Municipal Code. The designed building land coverage is 49.6%, below the 50% land coverage allowed by the Mixed -Use Commercial Land Use Designation (2020 General Plan). The building height also complies with the Mixed -Use Commercial Land Use Designation as well as the Municipal Code Section 29.10.090 which addresses height limits and exceptions to such building height limits since the Project is consistent with that section. As you know, Municipal Code Section 29.10.090 allows exceptions to the height restrictions; therefore, this Municipal Code Section allows towers, spires, and similar architectural features to exceed the 35-foot height limit provided those areas are inaccessible to human activity or 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 a 650.326.1600 1(Page ,EXHIBIT 6 storage. Consistent with Section 29.10.090, the building entry feature will be closed off at the second floor ceiling such that the feature will neither be accessible, habitable nor visible from the interior of the building. Thus, tenants in the buildings will be unable to access or use the feature from inside the building and the building entry feature would qualify for the exception to the 35-foot height limitation. The building use will be dedicated to professional office use. Hours of operation will generally be from 7am to 6pm. Given the proposed building square footage, we anticipate no more than 1 employee per 250 sf of usable space on site at any given time. Because the tenant mix has not been finalized, office hour shift details are not currently available; however, given the types of professional office space users we are targeting, we expect the hours of operation, including any employee shifts would be limited between 7am to 6pm. Site development would require demolition of all existing site improvements. The project neither proposes nor requires a General Plan Amendment and Planned Development. The project complies with the Zoning for the property in all respects. The project does not require any variance or exception to any rule, code or regulation and meets all requirements for the zoning code related to tot coverage, set -back, heights and other requirement of the zone. This request is for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (required by Town Code) and Architecture and Site Application materials (attached), which are required for the construction of the buildings. Background: LP Acquisitions is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lamb Partners, which has developed over 800,000 square feet of commercial and office buildings in Santa Clara County since 1998. We have taken great interest in the West Valley Class A office Market, specifically Los Gatos. Our goal is to provide quality commercial projects to neutralize the very low vacancy rates and high demand for Class A office space in the Los Gatos area. Our proposed project is consistent with the Town's objective of promoting economic vitality and business diversity in Los Gatos. Initially, we met with Town Planning Staff and various CDAC Committee Members to better understand the site zoning and uses which might be sensitive to current Town conditions. During our CDAC meeting, the Committee Members provided valuable feedback on the following four (4) areas related to compatibility with the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan and Zoning: Traffic, Building Height and Size, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Community Outreach. We took great care in discussing these items with the Committee Members and we have provided details below to address their concerns. In addition to these initial meetings, during the last 16 months we have successfully completed our due diligence process, engaged the Town Planning Staff and Public Works in three (3) technical review meetings to address Staff comments. We have met with various Planning and Public Works Staff and a couple of the Town's key planning review consultants (including Larry Cannon, Town Consulting Architect). The purpose of these meetings were to clarify and confirm the proposed architectural concepts and treatment of offsite conditions and to address specific technical concerns. Wage 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1 650.326.1600 Lastly we recently participated in a kick-off meeting organized by Town Planning Staff for the initiation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review process. Though our project does not trigger preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR), we voluntarily agreed to preparation of an EIR with the intent of providing the community with an opportunity to review a more rigorous and comprehensive environmental assessment of our proposed project than would otherwise be prepared. The project does not result in any significant environmental impacts. The City's Draft Environmental Impact Report further confirmed that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. Nonetheless, we voluntarily agreed to include the handful of additional mitigating features identified in the Draft EIR in order to further lessen the already Tess -than -significant environmental impacts. Moreover, even though the project would not cause any significant environmental impacts, the Draft EIR considered alternatives to the Proposed Project. in this regard, the Town went above and beyond CEQA's requirement to identify alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen environmental impacts because the project would not cause any significant impacts to begin with. Nonetheless, although the Draft EIR alternatives would not "feasibly attain" most of the basic objectives of the project, we appreciate the Town's interest in providing the alternatives analysis for informational purposes so that the public and decision makers can be fully informed about the consequences of the project and our efforts to design an office development that is compatible with the surrounding land uses. All of the information below was requested by CDAC members and we have taken great care to show that we are in compliance with the Los Gatos General Plan 2020. We conclude this letter with a discussion of the benefits to the community. Office Market Research Statistics for Los Gatos: • The size of the commercial office market in Los Gatos is approximately 1,617,800 square feet, of which 655,340 square feet is Cass A Office. • The current Class A vacancy in the West Valley is 10.44%. • The current Class A vacancy in Los Gatos is 2.64%. ▪ Below is the historical vacancy rate for Los Gatos from January 2011 to present 3jPage 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1650.326.1600 Los Gatos Office Class A Vacancy 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00%, 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0003 1/1/11 5/1/11 9/1/11 1/1/12 5/1/12 9/1/12 1/1/13 5/1/13 9/1/13 1/1/14 5/1/14 9/1/14 1/1/15 5/1/15 9/1/15 1/1/16 5/1/16 'Colliers International = July 1, 2016 Los Gatos & WV Availability Reports (see attached "Monthly Snapshot") Project Compatibility with the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan and Zoning: • Land Use: The proposed project has been designed in conformance with the Town of Los Gatos Zoning requirements. Proposed site coverage, height limitations and parking requirements all meet the Town zoning requirements. We are requesting no special considerations, variances, exceptions or amendments as part of this application. Specific applicable goals/policies in the 2020 General Plan include: LU-1.2 Ensure that new development preserves and promotes existing commercial centers consistent with the maintenance of a small-town atmosphere and image. LU-1.4 lnfill projects shall be designed in context with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding structures, and should blend rather than compete with the established character of the area. LU-1.8 Commercial development of any type (office, retail, research and development, etc.} shall be designed in keeping with the small-town character of Los Gatos. • Community Design Element: The existing buildings on the site were constructed in the mid 1960's and have outlived their usefulness in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability, and they do not meet the current building code requirements for seismic safety and accessibility. The proposed project will bring to the area new state of the art Class A office buildings, incorporating recycled and sustainable building materials and energy efficient operational systems. The architecture has utilized 4'Page 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1650.326.1600 building materials, exterior finishes and design features that compliment not only the surrounding land uses, but draw from the architecture of the Town's most recognizable and important buildings. The stone veneer and canopy incorporated into the first floor helps to ground the buildings and break up the height of the structures. The second floor provides functional balconies and natural/earth-toned building materials and colors allowing for a seamless blend with the buildings' surroundings. These architectural features as well as the day roof tile with saw -cut wood rafters are consistent with the architectural features and character found in other nearby commercial and residential structures. The Hotel Los Gatos (210 E. Main St.) and both Palo Alto Medical Foundation buildings located at 15400 Los Gatos Blvd and 15720 Winchester Blvd are examples of this architectural style. Importantly, the buildings have been set back to the rear of the site, opening the front of the site to an area of enriched landscaping, pedestrian activity and employee use. By providing underground parking, visitor parking on the street level is kept to a minimum, further enhancing the pedestrian experience as compared to existing conditions. To respond to Town Staff comments, and in respect of our immediate property owners and businesses, a Shadow Study was prepared as part of this resubmittal, please refer to Sheet A3.32, Based on the shade and shadow analysis, no impacts to adjacent property owners would result. As a result of the attention we have afforded to these high quality design elements, the proposed architecture will respect the small town feel desired by the Town through a combination of building articulation, scale and building setbacks, and landscape treatments. (Refer to Sheets A1.O1, A3.O1, A3.O2, A3.11a, A3.11b, L0.1, and LO.2). Redevelopment of this site will also provide a more desirable building type needed to attract and retain today's high tech and professional office users (i.e. larger floor plates, operationally sustainable/functional buildings, energy efficient systems and onsite employee amenities). 98% of the parking for the project will be below grade leaving more of the site available for landscape, open space and employee amenity/leisure space. Site lighting will be largely accomplished with bollard pedestrian lights, wall sconces, and soffit lighting, thereby meeting the night -lighting safety needs and minimizing lighting impacts to the neighboring sites. Our goal is to create an interactive pedestrian orientated space that is attractive to future employees and visitors to the site. Specific applicable goals/policies in the 2020 General Plan include- CD-1 Preserve and enhance Los Gatos' character through exceptional community design. CD-1.1 Building elements shall be in conformance with those traditionally in the neighborhood. CD-1.2 New structures, remodels, landscapes and hardscapes shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area. 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1650 326.1600 Wage CD-1.3 Buildings, landscapes, and hardscapes shall follow the natural contours of the property. CD-1.4 Development on all elevations shall be of high equality design and construction, a positive addition to and compatible with the Town's ambiance. Development shall enhance the character and unique identity of existing commercial and/or residential neighborhoods. CD-2 To limit the intensity of new development to a level that is consistent with surrounding development and with the Town at large. CD-3 CD-4 To require utilities, landscaping and streetscapes to contribute to Los Gatos' high - quality character. CD-3.2 Street and structural lighting shall be required to minimize its visual impacts by preventing glare, limiting the amount of light that falls on neighboring properties, and avoiding light pollution of the night sky. CD-3.4 Encourage the use of landscaping such as trees, large shrubs, and trellised vines to mitigate the effects of building mass, lower noise, and reduce heat generation. CD-3.5 All landscaping shall be carefully reviewed to ensure that it is aesthetically pleasing, compatible with its neighborhood and natural environment, and water conserving. CD-3.7 Roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened and such screening shall be considered as part of the structure for height limitations. To preserve existing trees, natural vegetation, natural topography, riparian corridors and wildlife habitats, and promote high quality, well designed, environmentally sensitive, and diverse landscaping in new and existing developments. CD-4.5 New development shall promote visual continuity through tree planting, consistent use of low shrubs and ground cover. CD-16 Promote and protect view sheds and scenic resources. • Transportation Element: The property is ideally located for ingress/egress to Los Gatos -Saratoga Road and Highway 17, with the northbound on -ramp to Highway 17 adjacent to the site. Hexagon has performed a full traffic impact study (TIA) with direction from Los Gatos Public Works for the proposed project. Briefly, the report presents the following conclusions: • During the daily AM and PM peak -hour, trips generated by the proposed project had no significant impact on traffic operations. The report concludes that no rnitigation improvements are needed at the intersections studied in the traffic analysis. • Specifically, inside the am/pm peak timeframes, all intersections studied would operate at acceptable levels of service under all studied scenarios. Wage 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1650.326.1800 • As stated in the Hexagon Report, though the proposed project does not trigger any CEQA-related impacts, it is noted that the intersections on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road at Santa Cruz Avenue and at University Avenue experience longer queues and delays on certain LOS calculations indicated. Thus, the proposed project includes certain roadway improvements to help alleviate existing operational delays. These improvements are identified and shown on Figure 12 which is attached to this letter. With the addition of these few improvements and overall design of the proposed project, the intent of the following goals/policies of the 2020 General Plan would be met. Specific applicable goals/policies in the 2020 General Plan include: TRA-2.4 New development shall minimize the number of driveway openings and curb cuts. TRA-2.6 Street improvements such as curb cuts, sidewalks, bus stop turnouts, bus shelters, light poles, traffic signals, benches, and trash container shall be planned as an integral part of development projects to ensure safe movement of people and vehicles and minimize disruption to the streetscape. TRA-3 To prevent and mitigate traffic impacts from new development (all policies under Goal TRA-3). TRA-5 To ensure that Los Gatos streets are safe for all users, including drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. TRA-9.6 Require development proposals to include amenities that encourage alternate forms of transportation that reduce pollution or traffic congestion as a benefit to the community (e.g. bicycle lockers/racks, showers, dedicated van -pool or car-pool parking areas, dedicated shuttle services, innovative bus shelter designs). TRA-13 To provide adequate parking for existing and proposed uses, and to minimize impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods. TRA-133 Require adequate parking in commercial areas so as not to impact or affect adjacent residential properties. • Environmental and Sustainability Element: The project will promote the appropriate use of local, native plants in its landscaping. It will promote the efficient use of water, and will minimize the amount of storm water runoff. Development of the proposed project would include low-water use landscape and plant materials to control sun and wind exposure, and to provide employee amenity spaces that are both functional and aesthetically inviting. The core and shell of the office structure would be 7IPage 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park. CA 94025 I 650.326.1600 designed with the goal of achieving the standards for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification based on current LEED standards. Specific applicable goals/policies in the 2020 General Plan include: ENV-1 To preserve and protect native plants and plant communities in the Town, and promote the appropriate use of local, native plants in habitat restoration and landscaping. ENV-5 To protect and preserve watersheds and water quality. ENV-6 To conserve the water resources of the Town and promote the efficient use of water to ensure an adequate support of the Town's plant and wildlife populations as well as human populations. ENV-9 To minimize the amount of storm water runoff, as well as to protect and improve the water quality of runoff. ENV-10 To promote recycling and reuse as well as reduction in demand. ENV-12 To conserve the air resources of the Town and maintain and improve acceptable air quality in Los Gatos. ENV-13 To promote a sustainable community that protects environmental resources and the climate to prevent negative impacts to future generations. ENV-14 To reduce overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. ENV-17 To promote green buildings that minimize consumption of energy and natural resources ■ Los Gatos Sustainability Plan (2012): Sustainability measures including energy efficiency and alternative transportation facilities will be provided in accordance with Los Gatos standards. The framework for solar energy and solar hot water systems installation will be provided and fixtures will be chosen according to efficiency requirements. The project will be designed to meet Cal Green standards and go beyond the Town's requirements to attain LEED gold certification. Additional measures from the Los Gatos Sustainability Plan addressed by the project include support for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit facilities and programs such as a fixed route shuttle, school pool program and a vehicle circulation, parking and idling reduction program. The development includes solar orientation and solar ready features to promote renewable energy generation. Energy efficiency features such as programmable thermostats, energy - efficient indoor and outdoor appliances and lighting are also included. The project will meet water use and efficiency requirements to include water efficiency retrofits and water conservation pricing. A thorough Construction Waste Management plan will address construction waste diversion from the project and promote salvaged, recycled -content and local Wage 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1 650.326,1600 construction materials. The wide array and level of sustainability measures included in the proposed project would meet the full intent of the applicable goals/policies in the 2012 Sustainability Plan as noted below. Specific applicable goals/policies in the 2012 Sustainability Plan include: TR-1 Support for Pedestrians, Bicyclists and Transit. Promote walking, bicycling, and transit through the following: a. Require all new buildings, excluding single-family homes, to include a principal functional entry that faces a public space such as a street, square, park, paseo or plaza, in addition to any entrance from a parking lot, to encourage pedestrian foot traffic. b. Require new projects, excluding single-family homes, to include pedestrian or bicycle through -connections to existing sidewalks and existing or future bicycle facilities, unless prohibited by topographical conditions. c. Seek grant funding to establish a Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program to increase more student walking and biking trips. d. Design and implement affordable traffic -calming measures on specific streets to dissuade Highway 17 cut -through traffic and attract pedestrian and bicycle traffic. e. Implement transit access improvements through sidewalk/crosswalk safety enhancement and bus shelter improvements. TR-4 Bicycle Facilities and Programs. Provide for new bicycle facilities and programs through the following: a. Install new bicycle facilities throughout the existing Town street network to close bicycle network gaps as identified in the General Plan. b. Require bicycle parking facilities and on -site showers in major non-residential development and redevelopment projects. Major development projects include buildings that would accommodate more than 50 employees, whether in a single business or multiple tenants; major redevelopment projects include projects that change 50 percent or more of the square footage or wall space. TR-6 Vehicle Circulation, Parking and Idling Reduction Programs. Support trip reduction and the use of electric vehicles through the following: a. Encourage a voluntary Employer Commute Trip Reduction Program for new and existing development. This would be multi -strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures, such as ride -share programs, discounted transit programs, end -of -trip facilities (e.g. showers and lockers), encouraging telecommuting, and preferential parking permit programs. As part of this program, encourage employers to allow commuters to pay for transit with pre-tax dollars. b. Encourage new non-residential development to include designated or preferred parking for vanpools, carpools and electric vehicles. GB-4 Solar Orientation. Require measures that reduce energy use through solar orientation by taking advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sunscreens. 9IPage 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 I 650.326.1600 RE-3 Renewable Energy Generation in Projects. Require that new or major rehabilitations of commercial, office, or industrial development greater than or equal to 20,000 square feet in size incorporate solar or other renewable energy generation to provide 15 percent or more of the project's energy needs. Major rehabilitations are defined as remodeling/additions of 20,000 square feet of office/retail commercial or 100,000 square feet of industrial floor area. Remove regulatory barriers to incorporating renewable energy generation. RE-5 Solar Ready Features. Where feasible, require that all new buildings be constructed to allow for the easy, cost-effective installation of future solar energy systems. "Solar ready" features should include: proper solar orientation (i.e. South facing roof area sloped at 20 to 55 degrees from the horizontal); clear access on the south sloped roof (i.e. No chimneys, heating vents, or plumbing vents); electrical conduit installed for solar electric system wiring; plumbing installed for solar hot water system; and space provided for a solar hot water storage tank. EC-1 Energy -Efficient Appliances and Lighting. Require new development to use energy - efficient appliances that meet Energy -Star standards and energy -efficient lighting technologies that exceed Title 24 standards by 30 percent. EC-3 Energy -Efficient Outdoor Lighting. Require outdoor lighting fixtures to be energy - efficient. Require parking lot light fixtures and light fixtures on buildings to be on full cut -off - fixtures, except emergency exit or safety lighting, and all permanently installed exterior lighting shall be controlled by either a photocell or an astronomical time switch. Prohibit continuous all night outdoor lighting in construction sites unless required for security reasons. Revise the Town Code to include these requirements. EC-10 Heat Gain Reduction. Require all new development and major rehabilitation (i.e. additions or remodels of 20,000 square feet of office/retail commercial or 100,000 square feet of industrial floor area) projects to incorporate any combination of the following strategies to reduce heat gain for 50 percent of the non -roof impervious site landscape, which includes roads, sidewalks, courtyards, parking lots, and driveways: shade within five years of occupancy; paving materials with a Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) of at least 29, open grid pavement system; and parking spaces underground, under deck, under roof , or under a building. Any roof used to shade or cover parking must have an SRI of at least 29. WW-1 Water Use and Efficiency Requirements. For new development, require all water use and efficiency measures identified as voluntary in the California Green Building Standards Code, and consider more stringent targets. California Green Building Standards Code requirement s include: 1) reduce indoor potable water use by 20 percent after meeting the Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture performance requirements, and 2) reduce outdoor potable water use by 50 percent from a calibrated mid -summer baseline case, for example, through irrigation efficiency, plant species, recycled wastewater, and captured rainwater. 10IPage 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 l 650.326.1600 WW-3 Bay Friendly Landscaping, Require new development to use native plants or other appropriate noon -invasive plants that are drought -tolerant, as described in the Bay Friendly Landscaping Guidelines, available at StopWaste.Org and BayFriendlyCoalition.Org. SW-3 Salvage, Recycled -Content and Local Construction Materials. Encourage the use of salvaged and recycled -content materials and other materials that have low production energy costs for building materials, hard surfaces, and non -plant landscaping. Require sourcing of construction materials locally, as feasible. • Conditional Use Permit Findings: The redevelopment of the project site into a more sustainability designed, operated and functional office space is both essential to the well-being of the Town of Los Gatos, its residents and employers, as it is desirable to the Community as a whole. The current site was not designed with sustainable practices in mind, and has long surpassed its functionality as a desirable office environment. The proposed uses would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the Town, and in fact, quite the opposite, will result in an improved condition over the currently built environment. As demonstrated through the project architectural elements, engineering details, and environmental sustainability practices highlighted herein, the property is designed to be in harmony with the various elements of the General Plan (as described above), and in fact implements many of those same policies. • Neighborhood Outreach: We initiated our Neighborhood Outreach Meetings and Open House on September 28th and September 30t", 2015, and followed up with additional outreach meetings on October 14th and 21st, November 17', 2015, January 5' and 6t", 2016, and then we held update meetings from July 18th through 2151, 2016. Since we envisioned this as an interactive process, we met onsite with the adjacent homeowner associations and key stakeholders (the names and addresses of those that were notified are attached to our resubmittal).. This process naturally began with extensive communication with the onsite tenants. Our outreach program includes notification of the meetings, an overview of meeting formats, when and where information will be provided, team members that will be present and a request for neighbors to attend so that we can seek their input. In addition, these initial meetings and our planned community neighborhood follow-up meetings provides specific information on the project's features, components and amenities in order to elaborate on the benefits that redevelopment of the site facilitates. • Benefits to the Community From an environmental perspective, the building designs will provide a more energy efficient and healthy environment for prospective tenants. Upgraded and energy efficient buildings will assist in further reducing the current carbon footprint by minimizing energy load, enhancing the number of large shade trees, modernizing energy operations/systems, increasing the amount of landscaped space and improving irrigation efficiency. We will be providing the type of high- 11'Page 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 650.326.1600 quality, Class A office space that will attract businesses seeking "A" space to stay in Los Gatos or relocate to Los Gatos. This will help enrich both the retention and diversity of local jobs offered in Town. By redeveloping the site, we will provide for a significantly higher property tax base, which benefits both the Town of Los Gatos, but also (importantly), the Los Gatos School Districts. We will provide a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to maximize alternative mode split options, reduce dependence on single -occupant vehicle and to encourage use of pedestrian/bicycle/ride-share programs. Additionally, this state of the art office complex will reward tenant employees which use public transportation to and from work by providing the following: 1) subsidize the cost of transit passes (details to be provided when a tenant is secured); 2) make available designated carpool/vanpool parking and garage area storage for up to 99 bicycles; and 3) provide shower and locker areas for pedestrians and cyclists. Respectfully, 5' ait42., 4 Shane Arters Principal & COO 12)Page 525 Middlefield Road, Suite i i8, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1650.326,1600 • 6 ?CT 'PR (TER TY / I qv •• I' RELOCATE TELEP1 {NE 7E4 ARVATfON,CABINET- REL1°.!Cs TE RACW141 oREVERTER •\ #TING 504AL POLE 10 gE#43N \ RELOCa'FE TYPE P CONTPOtIER C.S�•LTT-,Y RELOCATE IRT?1441104 COhTfi+OLLER-� fXIST1NC; St ioL wit TOI,iZEt M '"tOS GATOS - SARATOGA R 3AD 250"LEFT TURN LANE .t. II,,411kir /1.-111 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 4 North $, J Street, Suite 400 San Jose, C Iifomia 95113 Phone: (401119714100 0 www.heetrarw.mm FIGURE 12 CONCEPTUAL DRAWING FOR PROPOSED OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS DESIGNED BY: M. POWELL OATS 17f19V20f5 GRAPHIC SCALE 40 60 90 1 INCH — 40 FR€1 MONTHLY SNAPSHOT Los Gatos Office Class A Available Space Total Total Direct Sublease Direct Sublease Available Available Building Quarter Date Vacant Vacant occupied Occupied Space Space Rate Base 02-16 Jul-16 2,298 0 15,000 0 17.298 2.64% 655.340 Jun-16 2,298 0 15,000 0 17,298 2.64% 655,340 May-16 2.298 0 15,000 0 17,298 2.64% 655,340 01-16 Apr-16 2,298 0 0 0 2,298 0.35% 655,340 Mar-16 2,496 0 0 0 2.496 0.38% 655.340 Feb-16 5,892 0 0 0 5,892 0.90% 655,340 04-15 Jan-16 9,339 0 0 0 9,339 1.43% 655,340 Dec-15 9,339 0 0 0 9,339 1.44% 648,527 Nov-15 9,339 0 0 0 9,339 1.44% 648,527 03-15 0c1-15 9,339 0 0 0 9,339 1.4415 648,527 Sep-15 9,339 0 0 0 9,339 1.4415 648,527 Aug-15 7,082 0 2,257 0 9,339 1.4415 648,527 02-15 Jul-15 11,821 0 0 6 11,821 1.82% 648,527 Los Gatos Office Class A Absorption Gross Net Gross Net Absorption Absorption Quarter Date Date Range Absorption Absorption Quarter Quarter Q2.16 Jul-16 6(1/16 to 7/1(16 0 0 0 0 Jun-16 5/1116 to 6/1116 0 0 May-16 4/1/16 to 5/1116 0 0 Q1.16 Apr-16 3/1/16 to 4/1116 239 198 3,835 3,594 Mar-16 2/1/16 to 3/1116 3,396 3,396 Feb-16 1/1/16 to 211116 0 0 04-15 Jan-16 12/1/15 to 1/1/16 6.813 6,813 6,813 6,813 Dec-15 1111/15 to 1211/15 0 0 Nov-15 1011/15 to 11(1(15 0 0 Q3-15 0ct-15 911/15 to 10/1/15 242,500 242,500 247,239 244,982 Sep-15 8/1/15 to 9/1(15 0 -2,257 Aug-15 711/15 to 8/1(15 4,739 4.739 02-15 Jul-15 6/1115 to 7/1115 0 0 15.047 -654 Colliers Los Gatos Office Class A Weighted Average Asking Rents Weighted Quarter Date Rent in FS 02-16 Jul-16 53.60 Jun-16 $3.60 May-16 $3.60 Q1-16 Apr-16 $3.95 Mar-16 53.95 Feb-16 $3.95 Q4-15 Jan-16 $3.59 Dec-15 $3.59 Nov-15 $3.70 Q3-15 Oct-15 $4.06 Sep-15 54.06 Aug-15 $426 Q2-15 Ju1.15 $4,19 3.00% Total Available Space Rate 2.0O% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% 300,000 250,000 200.000 /50,000 100,000 50.000 0 -50,000 $4.50 $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 52.50 52.00 $1.50 $1.00 50.50 50.00 Jut-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 0c1-15 Nov-15 Deo-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 r Gross Absorption ■ Net Absorption Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep.t5 DU-15 Nov-15 Deo-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 Mey-16 Jun-16 Jur-16 Weighted Average Asking Rents 5- Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 Mey-16 Jun•16 Jul-16 Colliers international is pleased 10 be able to provide the above information and In so doirg believes its valedltyhowever, we cannot guarantee Its accuracy or take responsibility tor Its use. MONTHLY SNAPSHOT West Valley Office Class A Available Space Total Meet Sublease Direct Sublease Available Vacancy Budding Quarter Date Vacant Vacant Occupied Occupied Spites Rate Base 02-16 Jul-16 310,914 73,567 42,642 66,168 493,489 10.44% 3,682,939 Jun-16 310,914 65.338 42.842 47,199 465.293 10.22% 3,682,939 May-16 366A48 57.818 49.337 54,719 467,922 9.88% 3,682,939 01-16 Apr-16 308,005 4,211 27.557 47,199 386,973 8.48% 3,682.939 Mar-16 276,830 4,211 42,014 1,300 324,355 7.63% 3.582,939 Feb-16 203,180 4,154 118,031 9,867 335,232 5,63% 3,682,939 04-15 Jan-16 191,389 4,154 122,032 12,167 329,742 5.31% 3,682,939 Dec-1'S 195,882 4,154 134,038 30,683 364,557 5.91% 3,379,880 Nov-15 199,836 0 132,707 14,624 347,167 5.91% 3,382.269 03.15 Oct-15 186,055 7,539 142.524 12,324 398,742 5,74% 3,378,245 5ep-15 136,413 7,839 211,052 4,095 359,399 4.27% 3,378.245 Aug-15 140,137 0 250,217 18.439 408,793 4.15% 3,378.245 02.15 Jul-15 96.728 0 231,878 12,297 34D,903 2.9355 3,303,856 West Valley Office Class A Absorption Quarter Date Date Range Gross Net Grass Net Absorption Absorption Absorption Absorption Quarter Quarter 02-16 Jul-16 6/111610 711116 9,445 -6,229 Jun-16 5/1116106f1116 1,629 -12,386 May-16 41/16 to 511116 4,663-51,649 01-16 Apr-16 311116 to 411116 17,790-31,176 Mar-15 2/1/1610 311/16 20,742-71,250 Feb-16 111116 to 211116 10,017 -15,238 04-15 Jan-16 12/1/1510 111/16 311,156 305,622 Dec15 1111 / 1510 1211115 14,327 0 Nov-15 10/111510 1111 / 15 17,059 -9,627 03-15 0c1-15 9/1/15 10 101 /15 278.518 192,858 Sep-15 811115 to 911/15 34,498 -4,115 Aug-15 711115 to 611115 33,980 33,980 02-15 Jul-15 611f15107/1/15 35.212 -43,025 Colliers West Valley Office Class A Weighted Average Asking Rents Weighted Quarter Date Rent in FS 02-16 Jul-16 64.06 Jun-16 $3.98 May-18 53.89 01-16 Apr-16 53.65 Mar-16 53.88 Feb-16 53.87 04-15 Jan-16 53.83 Dec-15 63.90 Nov-15 $3.84 03-15 0c1-15 53,68 Sep-15 $3.64 Aug-15 54.06 02-15 Jul-15 $4,18 15,737-72.264 46.549 -117,664 342,542 295995 348,996 222,723 57,722 -48,744 1200% 10.00% 8.00 % 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0,00% 350,000 300.000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50.000 -50,000 100,000 54.50 64.00 53.50 63.00 32.50 $2.00 61.50 $1.00 $0.60 50.00 Total Vacant Space Rate J11l-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-1 5 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 ApM6 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 • Grass Absorption e Net Absorption Jut-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Ott-15 Nov-15 Doc-15 Jan-18 feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-16 Weighted Average Asking Rents Jui-t5 Aug.15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nnv-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Gages IntemaSonel Is pkaaed to be able to provide the above information and in so doing believed its vasty. However. we cannot guarantee Its accuracy or take responsibility for Ilo use. • This Page Intentionally Left Blank p:ACCWISITIONS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT RECEIVED AUG 03 2016 Project Construction Details for 401-405 Alberto Way TOWN OF L08 GATOS Updated and Revised August 2, 2016 PLANNING DIVISION General Construction Timeline: • Project construction will occur in a single phase with construction commencing in late spring/ early summer 2017. • The construction timeframe is 14 months from the initiation of Core & Shell to the completion of site work. • Strick Safety measures will be implemented (Le. minimum of 2 flagmen positioned on Alberto Way during grading and construction, and weekly Community Meetings open to all residents) will ensure rapid ingress/egress of emergency vehicles on AIberto Way and open communication of all Construction processes to residents. Site Grading: • The project will require excavation and shoring to accommodate a 2-story underground parking structure. • See attached route map of dump -truck travel. • The General Contractor will implement Dust Control Measures which meet the Town standards. • Estimated timeline for excavation, grading and shoring is 3 months. Underground Garage Construction: • This phase will include digging footings, preparing the pad, installing drainage and undergrounding, and waterproofing. • This phase will also include installation of rebar and structural materials to accommodate the concrete floors and sides of the parking structure. * The top of the parking structure will be the foundation of both buildings. • Our General Contractor will work closely with our Structural, Civil and Geotechnical engineers to incorporate the highest construction standards to meet building codes. • Estimated timeline for this phase is 4 months. Core & Shell Building Construction: • This phase will include structural, flooring, skin and roof. • All connections to public utilities. • Estimated timeline for this phase is 6 months. Site Work: • 0n-site finished hardscape, concrete sidewalks and paving. • Landscape including all trees and plants. • Outside meeting area arbors. • Estimated timeline is 1 month. Offsite Work: • This work will be done during the Core & Shell work noted above. • Estimated timeline for completion is concurrent with Core & Shell. Completion of Construction • This project is estimated to be completed by Summer/Fall 2018. 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 I 650.326,1600 EXIiSII 7 cf" Haul Route into the Site --: -. a `elcs i.YC r- tx s Go for Iran, A6a1 Haul Route out of the Sit+ tt7- ot iistr.; u t. PoYks Wicks Go gle • . L.01. c44)4. &Day* ISM L Olga: Comn* 0=13 Si This Page Intentionally Left Blank L') ACQUISITIONS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT FEB i n 20€5 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Neighborhood Outreach Table of Contents 1. Outreach Map 2. Sep. 28 & 30, 2015 Combined Open House Outreach Meeting for ALL Communities in the Alberto Way Corridor 3. Sep. 28, 2015 Meeting Summary with Oaks Office Park Owner 4. Oct. 14, 2015 Meeting Summary with Los Gatos Lodge Owner 5. Oct. 14, 2015 Meeting Summary with Best Western Inn Owner 6. Oct. 21, 2015 Los Gatos Commons HOA Outreach Presentation Meeting 7. Nov. 17, 2015 Las Casitas Open House Outreach Meeting 8. Jan. 5 & 6, 2016 Combined Open House Outreach Meeting for Bella Vista Village and Pueblo De Los Gatos EXFUBIT a 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1 650.326.1600 401 ALBERTO WAY OUTREACH MAP r''- ,,- `\ SITE „ii , "! 1 AUGUST 31, 2015 We Want our Input Neighborhood Open House LP Acquisitions, LLC is embarking on a major effort to define a new beginning for the office buildings at 491.405 Alberto Way, After a seven -month evaluation process, we are in the process of refining our conceptual plans for the redevelopment of the 2.15-acre site. We have made great progress, and the next step is to hear from you! We have taken great care in developing a concept {or redevelopment of the site that will fully comply with the Town's General Plan Goals and Policies. In fact, no special requests, considerations, variances or exceptions are being requested under this proposal. Today, our proposal features redevelopment of the site with two, new two-story Class "A!' office buildings, totaling 92,800 square feet. Parking would be provided in two levels of underground parking with eight surface parking spaces provided For visitor parking. The buildings would be dedicated to professional office use, just as they are today though with healthy, sustainable and energy efficient materials and systems in place Please join us for an evening of information, sharing, and community input! It will be an interactive, open house format, where you will have a chance to talk directly with members of the development team. Your input is critical to shaping a project site that results in a neighborhood and community asset. So come, join us for an evening of engaging conversation and creative thinking! Levi Zfili at., iT L4. toffo Neighborhood Open I -louse LP Acquisitions, LLC is embarking on a major effort to define a new beginning for the office buildings at d01-405 Alberto Way. After a seven -month evaluation process, we are in the process of refining our conceptual plans for the redevelopment of the 2.15-acre site. We have made great progress, and the next step is to hear from you! We have taken great care in developing a concept for redevelopment of the site that will fully comply with the Town's General Plan Goals and Policies. In fact, no special requests, considerations, variances or exceptions are being requested under this proposal. Today, our proposal features redevelopment of the site with two, new two-story Class 'A" office buildings, totaling 92,800 square feet. Parking would be provided in two levels of underground parking with eight surface parking spaces provided for visitor parking. The buildings would be dedicated to professional office use, just as they are today though with healthy, sustainable and energy efficient materials and systems in place. Please join us for an evening of information, sharing, and community input! It will be an interactive, open house format, where you will have a chance to talk directly with members of the development team. Your input is critical to shaping a project site that results in a neighborhood and community asset. So come, join us for an evening of engaging conversation and creative thinking! 'r rr;k :_n; ,^`S9rr»t;vf ,': Ail'; .,n➢t�:,^r_.Cs: 'S t' 1,.,l, 'sb`. =py R'.a'; loi [.e a�-..:'p-.1"v n.' .roar 'ritik t't,Ir5'tter euI! ka-r'p _r.Z1•t',e1'N4.701:;nr :ri6so, AREAS 1-6 401-405 Alberto Way Las Casitas, Las Gatos Commons, Oaks Office Park Owner (Nearon Enterprises), Bella Vista Village, Pueblo De Los Gatos, The Best Western Inn Hotel Owner Neighborhood Open House Meeting Combined Summary Monday September 28th 5:30-8:30 pm Wednesday September 30th 5:30-8:30 pm Comments; • Concerned about Speeding on Alberto Way • Alberto Way Sight Distance Issue o Eliminate on -street parking o Use mirrors all over Los Gatos • How many employees will there be? With more employees, traffic will get worse. • How much of the current hill view behind this property will be covered by the new structure? • Look at buildout on Alberto Way of all properties for traffic • How will the building affect my view? (Comment from unit#4 at 420 Alberto Way). • Please build pedestrian foot bridge over Highway 17. That would be fantastic! • Traffic signal timing needs to be adjusted. Need more green time on Alberto Way. O Don't take our on -street parking! (No red zones) • Accidents Los Gatos/Saratoga/Alberto--concerned about more with project Merge across NB 17 ramp to EB Los Gatos/Saratoga, unsafe. Too little weaving distance. • How does building compare in size to buildings at end of the street? G What is timing of construction --- start to end? ▪ Project timeline? How long can tenants expect to remain? ▪ Access in/out of the site from Highway 9 and Alberto Way Look at access from Highway 17 — very bad • Highway 85 is a "b" • Traffic overall is a "b" all over Town, too much development and construction going on • Concerned with number of on -street parking o BellaVista Village (47 home) would like to be notified of overall process schedule • General numbers on traffic generation (Bella Vista) residents would like to know the numbers* * 0/5 Art -5E12 Name: Address: Name: dia40 i,tiLe-pC e-7 Dk.1 Address: 'f'73----1-15— /71-1 (19 Name: (j\Ael'Wrn Address: A(GA9 L/cA 'pi Address: Dc 54 e— C) Name: Na me: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address. Name: Address: Name: it.fx4 1(oi si-e9 Email: Phone: 9,( J5i ?1-‘- Email: ie Phone: Email: Email: 1-6-Drin Phone: \JD Phone: ez, c110 5. 04 s bra: joydo.,03. utvrt 0-tifirpo Phone: 40 6-4 02 - tk 'i%'f'— k-rEmail: /1 Pho e: 5#‘'fr? mail: E 4114 v;\..41 ,u4 a-1414- NA.Q Email: Matt 1Z)\V kV 6° CaliN \Ooti,NV,froA 1\1\i‘A LGkxo 4.1.4 AT' 4'. AL 175/‘' r-17/4,--)-4 (c '3 aAAN) 04L4 ff• \D".1.0 44, letet f/ve,n, Address: Wir Name: Address: Name: Address: Phone: "" e Per-1- 47,4:1 Phone: Elm ail old+:5 costo, (fog (0 o5 a)(go Email: Phone: Phone: ciD -6-19 cc-6 -t Email: Phone: Phone: Name: Address: Name: Address: erfo Way Neighborhood Open House SIGN -IN SHEET ! G rL A [N ` 13S ci l ef-o LAI kie Email: Email: Phone: Name: h/ (01+-t Address: ?U / 4(Zyru Email: Phone: C' g 7C — Z 7 Phone: Ira — Name: 14'0ir 441 6/97 1 f Email: f' ell'i"i17r/tf/i 3,t %Q+< / ' ap'J Address: C G P41/(10 W � >0 r� �� Phone: $'I 6 fa —3Z Name: ,z, Address: 9E Name: Address: Email; Email: Phone: f f ,$3` 7-,/ 6 C5 Name: Email: Address: Name: Address: Phone: Email: Phone: Name: Email: Address: Name: Address; Name: Address: Phone: Email: Phone: Ernail: Phone: Name: Email: Address: Phone: Name: Email: Address: Phone: Phone: Name: Address: Name: at h t -t26h Li E 4;1 .9AS a-. #ikr (A' -3c ittall-5t1 44/1.1_ArCra-a i4-e) PA:Tr ck IC. Email: Email: cA2:, • nutputtemusil--, Phone: Address: S-0 )41 6 5 5 ('-7" L. Gr. Phone: Name: PN6VOCT,tkikil Address: I-101 540....1 Name: M. 1414 corr-Csenr-, Email: 0,11*AI 1,14C-klaqt4citi . Email: Phone: Address: 4441 &tic tie -14-0 1/41.7t.,,,j -.:tt Is, 7.2 1 't 5437_ Phone: Name: 7127-44,0eZei, 6'&1".4.0-0(-) Email: n?)1.7 -)D6671Arc&/1 Ceit..41,2 Address: /7/ Celes74 ,di ,Z9.5 ,,,947.5 Phone: Name: ij 010e1 51 Address: I & 0, .LtCS Ti+ p 1.1.5 (--:,01--a7S Phone: Name: (CiIi, A- (IC A 1,2 s----i-.L_r) Email: (i tAifIr Q .CN awcAsT . IQS1 Address: ) D .t,i,-..S3---A-- Ok--. Lt_, 6,41-1-46 Vi Phone: Name: C.A0rCi --._6. tt- e kl Email: S C-Ojit e, 5.ez, Address: 9 7/ D 6 t.et\.) WiJA DP_ . 1 91.9-A-Ta7Pq, 95096 Phone: Name: Email: Address: Phone: Name: Email: Address: Phone: Name: Email: Address: Phone: Name: Email: Address: Phone: Name: Email: Address: Phone: Em&i:6124 0 lin nti) is A (Lao . Name: Address: Nome: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Email: Address: Nome: Email: Address: Name: Email: Address: 401-405 Alberto Way Neighborhood Open Nr use SIGN -IN SHEET eEJ Email: O Gi.�c Phone: 6 r e JL 2 T Email: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Phone: Phone: Phone: Phone: Name: Email: Address: Phone: Name: Email: Address: Phone: Name: Email: Address: Name: Email: Address: Phone: Name: Email: Address: Phone: Phone: Name: Email: Address: Phone: APN 529-50-001 529-50-002 529-50-003 529-50-004 529-50-005 529-50-006 529-50-007 529-50-008 529-50-009 529-50-010 529-50-011 529-50-012 529-50-013 529-50-014 529-50-015 529-50-016 529-50-017 529-50-018 Mail Address 112 Craig Way 435 Alberto Way #2 435 Alberto Way #3 435 Alberto Way #4 435 Alberto Way #5 435 Alberto Way 46 435 Alberto Way #7 435 Alberto Way 48 435 Alberto Way 49 435 Alberto Way #10 435 Alberto Way #11 435 Alberto Way 412 435 Alberto Way 413 435 Alberto Way #14 22145 Orchard Ct 435 Alberto Way 416 5 Geranium Ln 435 Alberto Way 418 Mail City Mail State Mail ZIP Code Owner 1 Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Cupertino Ca Los Gatos Ca San Carlos Ca Los Gatos Ca 95032 Boiandi Jaleh (te) & Esfandiar (te) 95032 Cougoule Cynthia C & Jeffrey R 95032 Martin Bradford 95032 55 Partners LIc 95032 Rufanov Roman V & Victorlya A 95032 Yonaka Elise M 95032 Russell Geraldine A (te) 95032 Gainey Timothy J (te) & Kristy L (te) 95032 Drew Michael (te) & Jill (te} 95032 Prostota Yuri 95032 Patton Laura R 95032 Cahn Susan R 95032 Friedman Sheri (te) 95032 Morelli Joe & Sandy 95014 Scheuerlein Roy E (te] & Andrea R (te) 95032 Gherardi Lisa 94070 Butler Gerald Trust 95032 Wen Ren Gang & Lin Cindy Situs Address 435 Alberto Way 1 435 Alberto Way 2 435 Alberto Way 3 435 Alberto Way 4 435 Alberto Way 5 435 Alberto Way 6 435 Alberto Way 7 435 Alberto Way 8 435 Alberto Way 9 435 Alberto Way 10 435 Alberto Way 11 435 Alberto Way 12 435 Alberto Way 13 435 Alberto Way 14 435 Alberto Way 15 435 Alberto Way 16 435 Alberto Way 17 435 Alberto Way 18 Situs City State Situs ZIP Code Today's Date Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 APN 529-47-001 529-47-002 529-47-003 529-47-004 529-47-005 529-47-006 529-47-007 529-47-008 529-47-009 529-47-010 529-47.011 529-47-012 529-47-u13 529-47-014 529-7-015 529-47-016 529-47-017 529-47-018 529-47-019 529-47-020 529-47-021 529.47-022 529-47-023 529-47-024 529-47-025 529-47-026 529-47-027 529.47-028 529-47-029 529-47-030 529-47-031 529-47-032 529-47-033 529-47-034 529-47-035 529-47-036 529-47-037 529-47-038 529-07-039 529-7-040 529-47-041 529-47-042 529-47-043 529-47-044 Mall Address 439 Alberto Way #a103 145 El Pinar Po Box 110937 3091 Prunerldge Ave 1511 Montevai Ln 11 S Knoll Rd #20 439 Alberto Way #a106 1567 Via Campo Aureo 439 Alberto Way #a107 439 Alberto Way#a207 5 N Name Rd 439 Alberto Way #a201 439 Alberto Way#a102 16055 Camino Del Cerro 109 Bond Ct 439 Alberto Way#210 439 Alberto Way#a109 282 Shannon Oaks Ln 439 Alberto Way #108 639 Meadow Ave 16270 Short Rd 6043 Allen Ave 1309 Stillwaters Ave 443 Alberto Way #b221 16178 Rose Ave Po Box 502580 441 Alberto Way #111 441 Alberto Way #b112 1067Almarida Dr 132 Tait Ave 443 Alberto Way#b115 443 Alberto Way tib215 Po Box 320786 443 Alberto Way #b216 443 Alberto Way#b117 443 Alberto Way #b217 2609 Annette Ct 443 Alberto Way#b218 1713 Husted Ave 12311 Irwin Way 443 Alberto Way4b123 443 Alberto Way 443 Alberto Way #b124 443 Alberto Way #b224 Mali City Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Campbell Ca Santa Clara Ca San Jose Ca MIII Valley Ca Los Gatos Ca San Jose Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Las Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Santa Clara Ca Los Gatos Ca San Jose Ca Centralia Wa Los Gatos Ca Monte Serena Ca St Thomas Vi Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca San Jose Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Las Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Tracy Ca Los Gatos Ca San Jose Ca Boulder Creek Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Mall State Mall ZIP Code Owner 1 95032 Brown Judith A (te) 95032 Boren Rita L (te) 95611 Ripps Donna 5 95051 Swanson Kathleen & Grant 95120 Schneider Linda (te) 94941 Hedemark Charm (te) 95032 Jensen Paul T (te) 95120 Kaviani Allreza S (te) 95032 Panighetti Irene (te) 95032 Shoda Bernice 95033 Stark Dennis C (te) & Judith W (te). 95032 Martin Patsy J (te) 95032 Klaben Anne & Martin 95032 Crlst David W 95030 Guthrie Family Trust 95032 Figueroa Joseph A & Kathy A 95032 White Helen C (te) & Stephen F (te) 95032 Gundotra Vlvek P (te) & Claudia N (te) 95032 Peregrina Patricia R 95051 Denlssova Evguenia 95032 Hernandez Reginald P (te) & Betty! (tel 95123 Mangola Margaret B (te) 98531 Johnson Ann (te) 95032 Morrison Mary K (te) 95030 7ambettl Marino 805 Zimmerman Howard W (te) & Emil 95032 Dailey Matthew 0 95032 Barnett Harlan H & Audrey R 95128 Moskaluk Raymond 95030 Weinstein Deborah 95032 Simmons Ilse P (te) 95032 Ryan Shtrley M Living Trust 95032 Hogan Alan P (te) 95032 Bacigalupo Joseph A (te) 95032 Lane Monya A 95032 Burns Mauro L 95304 Mendicino Deborah E (te) 95032 Thomson Euan S (te) & Allison J (te) 95124 Hamidi Samira 95006 Jordan Investment Trust 95032 MitteistetJohn 95032 Hartley Barbara J (te) 95032 Greenband Anita (te) 95032 Hodges Gerry (te) Situs Address Situs City State Situs ZIP Code Today's Date 439Aherto Way A103 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 439 Aiberto Way Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 439 Alberto Way 104 Los Gatos Ce 95032 R/31/2015 439 Alberto Way A204 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 439 Alberta Way A105 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 439 Alberto Way 205 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 439 Alberto WayA106 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 439 Alberto Way A206 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 439 Alberto Way A107 Los Gatos Ca 95032 13/31/2015 439 Alberto Way A207 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 439 Alberto Way A101 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 439 Alberto Way A201 Los Gatos Ce 95032 8/31/2015 439 Alberto Way A102 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 439 Alberto Way A202 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 439 Alberto Way A110 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 439 Alberto Way 210 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 439 Alberto Way A109 Los Gatos Ca 95032 S/31/2015 439 Alberto Way 209 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 439 Alberto Way 108 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 439 Alberto Way A208 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way B120 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way B220 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way 8121 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way 8221 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way B122 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way B222 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 441 Alberto Way 111 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 441 Alberto Way B112 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 441 Alberto Way 6113 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 441 Alberto Way 6114 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way B115 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way B215 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way 8116 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way 8216 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way B117 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way 13217 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way 6118 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way 8218 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way 6119 Los Gatos Ca 95032 e/31/2015 443 Alberto Way 8219 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Aiberto Way B123 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way 8124 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 443 Alberto Way 8224 Los Gatos Ca 95032 13/31/2015 APN Mall Address Mall City Mail State Mail ZIP Code Owner 1 Situs Address 5Itus City State Situs ZIP Code Today's Date 529-21-042 101 Ygnaclo Valley Rd #450 Walnut Creek Ca 94596 Alberto Way Holdings Llc 485 Alberto Way Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 APN 529.45-001 529-45-001 529-45-001 529-45-001 529-45-001 529-45-001 529-45-001 529-45-001 529-45-001 529-45-002 529-45-003 529-45-004 529-45-005 529-45-006 529-45-007 529-45-008 529-45-009 529-45-010 529-45-011 529-45-012 529-45-013 529-45-014 529-45-015 529-45-016 529-45-017 529-45-018 529-45-019 529-45-020 529-45-021 529-45-022 529-45-023 529-45-024 529-45-025 529-45-026 529-45-027 529-45-02B 529-45-029 529-45-030 529-45-031 529-45-032 Mall Address 61 Mariposa Ave 21060 Homestead Rd 21060 Homestead Rd 19336 Monte Vista Dr 185 Cuesta De Los Gatos 195 Cuesta De Los Gatos 112 Cuesta De Los Gatos 112 Cuesta De Los Gatos 112 Cuesta De Los Gatos 185 Cuesta De Los Gatos 179 Cuesta De Los Gatos Po Box 3005 129 Treseder Ct 125 Treseder Ct 121 Treseder Ct 117 Treseder Ct 113 Treseder Ct 109 Treseder Ct 16404 E La Chiquita Ave 165 Montclair Dr 104 Cuesta De Los Gatos 4825 KIngdale Dr 112 Cuesta De Los Gatos 2465 De La Cruz Blvd 120 Cuesta De Los Gatos 124 Cuesta De Los Gatos 22605 Salem Ave 4724 Cordoba Way 7782 E Fledgling Dr 136 Cuesta De Los Gatos 138 Cuesta De Los Gatos 21060 Homestead Rd 166 Cuesta De Los Gatos 168 Cuesta De Los Gatos 170 Cuesta De Los Gatos 174 Cuesta De Los Gatos 176 Cuesta De Los Gatos 178 Cuesta De Los Gatos 182 Cuesta De Los Gates 186 Cuesta De Los Gatos Mall City Los Gatos Ca Cupertino Ca Ca Saratoga Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Olympic Valley Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Santa Cruz Ca Los Gatos Ca San Jose Ca Los Gatos Ca Santa Clara Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Cupertino Ca Oceanside Ca Scottsdale Az Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Cupertino Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Mail State Mail ZIP Code Owner 1 95030 Maggi Living Trust 95014 Cupertino Development Corporat 95014 Bella Vista Village Homeowners 95070 Melehan James 5 & Patricia E 95032 Mazumdar Sanjay 95032 Cala Salvatore A 95032 Bast 1999 Trust 95032 Bast Clifford C &Julie D 95032 Bast Clifford C &Julie D 95032 Parsons Edward W 95032 Hung Pei -Jean (te) 96146 Stepner David (te) &Judie {te} 95032 Borrison Kristine A 95032 Yemoto Wesley Paul (te) 95032 Thomas Colleen A 95032 Franklin Shelly 95032 Ogawa Stuart (te) 95032 Kauffman Bennis H (te) & Bonna 5 (te) 95032 Panyan Johanna W 1991 Trust 95060 Mccullaugh Ellen N 95032 self Ghoiamali (te) & Afagh (te) 95124 Wong Perry R 95032 Moreau -fox Sylvia J 95050 Melehan Joseph P {te) 95032 Gull° David L (te) 95032 likbahar Aysen 95014 Altmaler Richard {te) & Paulette (te) 92056 Liou Mendy Y (Cc) 85255 Clark John 95032 Hughes Anne (te) 95032 Bryan John W & Jennifer D 95014 Bella Vista Village Homeowners 95032 Imam Mohammed S & Anoopma 95032 Kim Eliot 95032 Lutgert Robin L {te) 95032 Kemp Melanie A (te) 95032 Matacco Scott & Gretchen J 95032 Kennedy Koileen (te) 95032 Vaccarello Richard H (te) 95032 Anderson Robert C (te) & Deborah P (te) Situs Address Situs City 371 Bella Vista Ave Los Gatos 371 Bella Vista Ave Los Gatos 355 Bella Vista Ave Los Gatos 371 Bella Vista Ave Los Gatos 371 Bella Vista Ave Los Gatos 355 Bella Vista Ave Los Gatos 355 Bella Vista Ave Los Gatos 355 Bella Vista Ave Los Gatos 185 Cuesta De Los Gatos 179 Cuesta De Los Gatos 175 Cuesta De Las Gatos 129 Cuesta De Los Gatos 125 Treseder Ct 121 Treseder Ct 117 Treseder Ct 113 Treseder Ct 109 Treseder Ct 101 Cuesta De Los Gatos 100 Cuesta De Los Gatos 104 Cuesta De Los Gatos 108 Cuesta De Los Gatos 112 Cuesta De Los Gatos 116 Cuesta De Los Gatos 120 Cuesta De Los Gatos 124 Cuesta De Los Gatos 128 Cuesta De Los Gatos 132 Cuesta De Las Gatos 134 Cuesta De Los Gatos 136 Cuesta De Los Gatos 138 Cuesta De Los Gatos Cuesta De Los Gatos 166 Cuesta De Los Gatos 168 Cuesta De Los Gatos 170 Cuesta De Los Gatos 174 Cuesta De Los Gatos 176 Cuesta De Los Gatos 178 Cuesta De Los Gatos 182 Cuesta De Los Gatos 186 Cuesta De Los Gatos State Situs ZIP Code Today's Date Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Ca 95032 B/31/2015 Ca 95032 B/31/2015 Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Ca 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 13/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2615 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Las Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 13/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 529-45-033 529-45-034 529-45-035 529-45-036 529-60-001 529-60-002 529-60-003 529-60-004 529-60-005 529-60-006 529-60-007 529-60-008 529-60-009 529-60-010 529-60-011 529-60-012 529-60-013 190 Cuesta De Los Gatos 194 Cuesta De Los Gatos 198 Cuesta De Los Gatos 195 Cuesta De Los Gatos 164 Maggi Ct 162 Maggi Ct 160 Maggi Ct 17751 Vista Ave 156 Maggl Ct 154 Maggi Ct 152 Maggl Ct 150 Maggl Ct 148 Maggi Ct 146 Maggi Ct 144 Maggi Ct 18599 Lyons Ct 140 Maggi Ct Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Monte Serena Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Saratoga Ca Los Gatos Ca 95032 Sedgwick Grant & Robin 95032 Parfitt Mary B 95032 Moon Stephanie L 95032 Hart Sharon 95032 Murphy Paul F 95032 Singh Ravi & Minal 8 95032 Corral Edgar (tei 95030 Doyle Ciaran T & Jane E 95032 Lawn Kenneth A (te} Si Mary A (-Le) 95032 Chin Debra 95032 Stulski Vitally 95032 BadameMaryJ 95032 Williamson Nicholas R & Laura A 95032 Straight Forrest 95032 Schweickert William 95070 Sanzgiri Alit 95032 Sarnia Hedayat & Marian 190 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 194 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 198 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 195 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 164 Maggi Ct Los Gatos Ca 162 Maggi Ct Los Gatos Ca 160 Maggi Ct Los Gatos Ca 158 Maggi Ct Los Gatos Ca 156 Maggf Ct Los Gatos Ca 154 Maggi Ct Los Gatos Ca 152 Maggi Ct Las Gatos Ca 150 Maggi Ct Los Gatos Ca 148 Maggl Ct Los Gatos Ca 146 Maggi Ct Los Gatos Ca 144 Maggi Ct Los Gatos Ca 142 Maggi Ct Los Gatos Ca 140 Maggi Ct Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 APN 529-43-001 529-43-002 529-43-003 529-43-004 529-43-005 529-43-006 529-43-007 529-43-008 529-43-009 529-43-010 529-43-011 529-43-012 529-43-013 529-43-014 529-43-015 529-43-016 529-43-017 529-43-018 529-43-019 529-43-020 529-43-021 529-43-022 529-43-023 529-43-024 529-43-025 529-43-026 529-43-027 529-43-028 529-43-029 529-43-030 529-43-031 529-43-032 529-43-033 529-43-034 529-43-035 529-43-036 529-43-037 529-43-038 529-43-039 529-43-040 Mall Address 175 Highland Ave 151 Eastridge Dr 420 Alberto Way #4 420 Alberto Way 86 420 Alberto Way #8 16025 Greenridge Ter 420 Alberto Way#52 17800 Soda Springs Rd 420 Alberto Way#46 420 Alberto Way #44 175 Highland Ave 3190 5 Bascom Ave #200 733 Old Orchard Rd 420 Alberto Way #38 420 Alberta Way #36 420 Alberto Way #34 420 Alberto Way #32 20600 Canyon View Dr 109 E Hilton Dr 420 Alberto Way #26 420 Alberto Way #24 655 Coe Ave 16251Shannon Rd 420 Alberto Way #18 860 Virginia Ave 420 Alberto Way #14 6224 Belmont Cir 13385 Surrey Ln 420 Alberto Way #7 999 Mazzone Dr Po Box 41513 420 Alberto Way4111 420 Alberto Way#13 37 Kldds Way 420 Alberto Way 451 6550 Crystal Springs Dr 420 Alberto Way #48 420 Alberto Way #47 1038 Wranglers Trail Rd 420 Alberto Way #43 Mall City Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos San Jose Campbell Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Saratoga Boulder Creek Los Gatos Los Gatos San Jose Los Gatos Los Gatos Campbell Los Gatos Mount Airy Saratoga Los Gatos San lose San Jose Los Gatos Los Gatos Ston ington Los Gatos San Jose Los Gatos Los Gatos Pebble Beach Las Gatos Mail State Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Md Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ct Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Mall ZIP Code Owner 1 95030 Hobson Nadine (te) 95032 Spiteri Ralph J & Laverne C 95032 Rolle Nlchole A 95032 Spence Dolores (te) 95032 Holland Andrew 95032 Pragastis Panaglotls & Lynn 95032 Prince Janet 95033 Hamm James F (te) & Norma P (te) 95032 Fillce Christine M 95032 Cathay CathyJ 95030 Hobson Nadine (te) 95124 Bawden Charles A 95008 Graziano Rosa A 95032 Huynh Duc 95032 White Charles A (te) 95032 Rich Andrew 95032 Dixon Margaret L 95070 Demartini A Klrch (te) & Sharon J (te) 95006 Pierce Paula M (te) 95032 Sato Paulette 95032 Wlttmayer Adam J 95125 smith Joan H (te) 95032 Sajjadi Hamad 95032 Scott Jannette 95008 Azad Kathryn Trust 95032 Tegger Carollynn 21771 Benet Charles A (te) & Elsbeth (te) 95070 Fireman Paul L (te) & Kay K (to) 95032 Brett Dedan 95120 Szabo Edward 0 (te) & Diane P (te) 95160 Corbisiero Samuel A (te) & Linda R (te) 95032 Harman Shaun 95032 Curtis Christopher V 6378 Carroll Alan E & Donna L 95032 Bonney Susan 95120 Fiorentino Joseph A (te) & Bette A (te) 95032 Ashburn Matthew P 95032 Roxborough Katherine R & Ben 93953 Cannizzaro Anthony) (te) & Margaret.' 95032 Melnik Sergey Situs Address 420 Alberto Way 1 420 Alberto Way 2 420 Alberto Way 4 420 Alberto Way 6 420 Alberto Way 8 420 Alberto Way 12 420 Alberto Way 52 420 Alberto Way 50 420 Alberto Way 46 420 Alberto Way 44 420 Alberto Way 42 420 Alberto Way 40 420 Alberto Way 39 420 Alberto Way 38 420 Alberto Way 36 420 Alberto Way 34 420 Alberto Way 32 420 Alberto Way 30 420 Alberto Way 28 420 Alberto Way 26 420 Alberto Way 24 420 Alberto Way 22 420 Alberto Way 20 420 Alberto Way 18 420 Alberto Way 16 420 Alberto Way 14 420 Alberto Way 3 420 Alberto Way 5 420 Alberto Way 7 420 Alberto Way 9 420 Alberto Way 10 420 Alberto Way 11 420 Alberto Way 13 420 Alberto Way 53 420 Alberto Way 51 420 Alberto Way 49 420 Alberto Way 48 420 Alberto Way 47 (te) 420 Alberto Way 45 420 Alberto Way 43 Situs City State Situs ZIP Code Today's Date Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 529-43-041 420 Alberto Way #41 529-43-042 420 Alberto Way #37 529-43-043 854 Via Seco 529-43-044 420 Alberto Way #33 529-43-045 420 Alberto Way #31 529-43-046 62 Broadway 529-43-047 420 Alberto Way #27 529-43-048 1708 Lollie Ct 529-43-049 11547 Green Valley Rd 529-43-050 10280 Pacific Ct 529-43-051 420 Alberto Way #19 529-43-052 420 Alberto Way #17 529-43-053 104 Loma Alta Ave 529-43-084 715 Michael St Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Nipomo Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca San Jose Ca Sebastopol Ca Plymouth Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Milpitas Ca 95032 Granas Alexander (te) & Carol S (te) 95032 Bourgeois John A 93444 Morrone Charles L 95032 Bartley Parastou 0 & Clint E 95032 ou Qian 95030 Switzer Lucille M (te) 95032 Thorne Julie D 95124 Kellogg William G (te} & Diane C (te) 95472 Cooper Gayle V 95669 Francis Karen L (te) 95032 Jerome Katarzyna M 95032 Pitzer Mary A 95030 Llebtha I Jennifer 95035 Wiggen Pt 420 Alberto Way 41 420 Alberto Way 37 420 Alberto Way 35 420 Alberto Way 33 420 Alberto Way 31 420 Alberto Way 29 420 Alberto Way 27 420 Alberto Way 25 420 Alberto Way 23 420 Alberto Way 21 420 Alberto Way 19 420 Alberto Way 17 420 Alberto Way 15 Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Ca 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95032 8/31/2015 95035 8/31/2016 APN Mail Address Mall City Mail State Mall ZIP Code Owner 1 Situs Address Situs City State Situs ZIP Code Today's Date 529-43-001 175 Highland Ave Los Gatos Ca 95030 Hobson Nadine (te) 420 Alberto Way 1 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 529-43-002 151 Eastridge Dr Los Gatos Ca 95032 Spited Ralph J & Laverne C 420 Alberta Way 2 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 529-43-003 420 Alberto Way #4 Los Gatos Ca 95032 Rolle Whole A 420 Alberto Way 4 Los Gatos Ca 95032 8/31/2015 AREA 3 401-405 Alberto Way, Los Gatos Meeting Summary with Dan Rosenbaum, Nearon Enterprises a/k/a Alberto Oaks Office Park Owner September 28, 2015 at 3:30pm Comments: • Alberto Oaks Office Project Owner • Met with Dan in person • Wanted to know what we are building and when • Had we done a traffic study to understand the impacts to a new project both for Highway 9, but also for the intersection with Alberto Way? • Overall was supportive as long as there aren't future traffic failure issues in the future after our project which would curtail his development plans • How many employees will there be? With more employees, traffic will get worse. • Will the garage parking be available to the public? • Traffic signal timing needs to be adjusted. Need more green time on Alberto Way. • How will large trucks make deliveries to the site during construction? • Where will the construction workers park during construction? • Will there be monitoring of construction traffic, noise and pollution? • What is timing of construction — start to end? • Project timeline? • How many people will travel to the site each day? ACROSS SARATOGA-LOS GATOS BLVD 401-405 Alberto Way, Los Gatos Phone CaII Summary with Keet Nerhan (Owner of Los Gatos Lodge) October 14, 2015 at 10:30am Comments: • Los Gatos Lodge Owner • Talked by phone with. Keet directly • Wanted to know what we are building and when • Had we done a traffic study to understand the impacts to a new project both for Highway 9, but also for the intersection with Alberto Way? • Overall was supportive as long as there aren't future traffic failure issues in the future after our project which would curtail his development plans • How many employees will there be? With more employees, traffic will get worse. • Will the garage parking be available to the public? • Traffic signal timing needs to be adjusted. Need more green time on Alberto Way. • How will large trucks make deliveries to the site during construction? • Where will the construction workers park during construction? • Will there be monitoring of construction traffic, noise and pollution? • What is timing of construction — start to end? • Project timeline? • How many people will travel to the site each day? AREA 6 401-405 Alberto Way, Los Gatos Phone Call Summary with Les Pelio (Owner of the Best Western Inn Hotel) October 14, 2015 at 2pm Comments: • Best Western Inn Owner • Talked by phone with Les directly • Wanted to know what we are building and when • Had we done a traffic study to understand the impacts to a new project both for Highway 9, but also for the intersection with Alberto Way? • Overall was supportive as long as there aren't future traffic failure issues in the future after our project which would cause traffic issues on ingress or egress with his site • How many employees will there be? With more employees, traffic will get worse. • Will the garage parking be available to the public? • Traffic signal timing needs to be adjusted. Need more green time on Alberto Way. • How will large trucks make deliveries to the site during construction? • Where will the construction workers park during construction? • Will there be monitoring of construction traffic, noise and pollution? • What is timing of construction — start to end? • Project timeline? • How many people will travel to the site each day? AREA 2 401-405 Alberto Way Los Gatos Commons —Neighborhood Open House Meeting Summary Wednesday, October 21, 2015 from 5-6pm Comments: • Over 55 Community • Presentation made to the HOA after their HOA meeting • 40 ± people in attendance • Gave a 20 minute presentation about the project, and then answered questions as follows: • Concerned about Speeding on Alberto Way • Alberto Way Sight Distance Issue • Many senior citizens like to walk during the day and are concerned about safety doing so • How many employees will there be? With more employees, traffic will get worse. • How much of the current hill view behind this property will be covered by the new structure? • Town should look at buildout on Alberto Way of all properties for traffic • Any idea if the restaurant across the street will open soon? • Any idea what the Nearon office project will be doing at the end of Alberto Way? • Any idea what the Los Gatos Lodge will be doing (if anything) on development? • Traffic signal timing needs to be adjusted. Need more green time on Alberto Way. • How will large trucks make deliveries to the site during construction? • Where will the construction workers park during construction? • Will there be monitoring of construction traffic, noise and pollution? • Accidents Los Gatos/Saratoga/Alberto—concerned about more with project • Difficult for older people to walk to downtown already due to sidewalk gaps, now it will be worse. • How does building compare in size to buildings at end of the street? • What is timing of construction — start to end? • Project timeline? • Access in/out of the site from Highway 9 and Alberto Way • Look at access from Highway 17 — very bad • Can anything be done about the stacking of cars getting out of AIberto Way in the am? • Traffic overall is a "b" all over Town, too much development and construction going on • Concerned with number of on -street parking making visibility terrible for seniors • How many visitor parking spaces will there be? • How many people will travel to the site each day? • Will the gates to the parking garage be up during the day? • Will the gates be down at night? • Homeless issues on the street already and we don't want to increase these Shane Arters Supror\--n &c,"„Ati,t-1/271/4.1-1-60( 1A0i4 AA From: Randy Lamb <randy@lambpartners.com> CL i . 1.0 5 67; ) 5 Co v w 0 t5 Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 2:19 PM To: 'Rosemary Harper' Cc: 'Anthony Schrock', 'John R. Mittelstet'; Randy Lamb; 'Shane Arters' Subject: RE: 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, Community Outreach Meeting Thanks Rosemary. That works fine for me and I look forward to seeing you all on the 21st. Are you in a large room at the site? Randy LAMB PARTNERS Randy Lamb 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118 Menlo Park, CA 94025 650-208-4195 mobile 650-326-1600 ext 3 650-326-1661 fax randy@lambpartners.com www.lambpartners.com ] Please consider the environment before printing this email, From: Rosemary Harper [mailto:dukenmolly@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 10:59 AM To: Randy Lamb <randy@lambpartners.com> Cc: Anthony Schrock <anthony@propertyproltd.com>; John R. Mittelstet <jmitt@comcast.net> Subject: Re: 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, Community Outreach Meeting Hi Randy Sorry did not get back to you yesterday. The best time for you to meet with the association would be at our next board meeting on October 21 st. We usually finish up about 5PM so I would suggest you arrive about that time and we will put you on the agenda. Rosemary Harper Los Gatos Commons HOA From: Randy Lamb <randya,,lamboartners.com> To: 'Rosemary Harper' <dukenmollyAyahoo,com> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:40 PM Subject: RE: 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, Community Outreach Meeting Thanks Rosemary. Sorry for the misspelling of your name. Randy 1 From: Rosemary Harper [mailto:dukenmollyafyahoo.comj Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:21 PM To: Randy Lamb <randyC 1ambpartners.com> Subject: Re: 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, Community Outreach Meeting Randy, I received the information and will get back to you as soon as possible. Rosemary Harper Los Gatos Commons HOA From: Randy Lamb <randy@lambpartners.com> To: Rosemarie Harper <Dukenmolly(cyahoo.com> Cc: Randy Lamb <Randy(c lambpartners.com>; 'Shane Alters' <shane@lambpartners.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 2:24 PM Subject: 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, Community Outreach Meeting Hi Rosemarie: Thank you for taking my call today on our proposed Alberto Way Class A Office project. Our company has been developing high end real estate projects for over 20 years. We build Class A office, high end multi -family condominium product, as well as custom homes. We have attached the initial invite sent out via USPS to all neighbors who own homes on (and off of) Alberto Way. We had an open house on September 28th and then on the 30th. Turnout from the neighborhood was good. We had a number of questions and suggestions for the project and are tracking every comment for further discussion internally. We actively look for input from property owners and neighbors on our projects. We are contacting every association on Alberto Way requesting to make a presentation on the project to an upcoming association meeting. We always strive to be brief in our presentations and promote input and questions from attendees. As you mentioned that your executive meeting is tomorrow, can we talk after the meeting on the outcome of our request to make a presentation? Can you also confirm receipt of this email so I know this made it to you? Thank you Randy Randy Lamb Managing Member Lamb Partners, LLC 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118 Menlo Park, Ca. 94025 2 AREA 1 401-405 Alberto Way Las Casitas—Neighborhood Open House Meeting Summary Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 7pm Comments: • Townhouse community adjacent to Project • Open House at the Project site • 4 people in attendance • Concerned about Speeding on Alberto Way • Alberto Way Sight Distance Issue • How many employees will there be? With more employees, traffic will get worse. • Any idea what the Nearon office project will be doing at the end of Alberto Way? • Traffic signal timing needs to be adjusted. Need more green time on Alberto Way. • How will large trucks make deliveries to the site during construction? • Where will the construction workers park during construction? • Will there be monitoring of construction traffic, noise and pollution? • What is timing of construction — start to end? • Project timeline? • Access in/out of the site from Highway 9 and Alberto Way • Can anything be done about the stacking of cars getting out of Alberto Way in the am? • How many visitor parking spaces will there be? • How many people will travel to the site each day? Jantua y 5, 2016 530-7:00pm 405 Alberto Way, Sul e A Los G,3tos, CA 9503 • Pelt hrn�.n Neighborhood Open House LP Acquisitions, LLC is embarking on a major effort to define a new beginning for the office buildings at 401-405 Alberto Way. After a ten-month evaluation process, we are in the process of refining our conceptual plans for the redevelopment of the 2.15-acre site. We have made great progress, and the next step is to hear from you! We have taken great care in developing a concept for redevelopment of the site that will fully comply with the Town's General Plan Goals and Policies. In fact, no special requests, considerations, variances or exceptions are being requested under this proposal. Today, our proposal features redevelopment of the site with two, new two-story Class A" office buildings, totaling 92,800 square feet. Parking would be provided in two levels of underground parking with eight surface parking spaces provided For visitor parking. The buildings would be dedicated to professional office use, just as they are today though with healthy, sustainable and energy efficient materials and systems in place. Please join us for an evening of information, sharing, and community input! It will be an interactive, open house format, where you will have a chance to talk directly with members of the development team. Your input is critical to shaping a project site that results in a neighborhood and community asset. So come, join us for an evening of engaging conversation and creative thinking! Stay involved! For mcall Parrly L.nrnt ca) (oso) 326-1604 : 103 ::•hqn \VAvklyA, Neighborhood Open mouse LP Acquisitions, LLC is embarking on a major effort to define a new beginning For the office buildings at 401.405 Alberto Way. After a ten-month evaluation process, we are in the process of refining our conceptual plans for the redevelopment of the 2.15-acre site. We have made great progress, and the next step is to hear from you! We have taken great care in developing a concept For redevelopment of the site that will fully comply with the Town's General Plan Goals and Policies. In fact, no special requests, considerations, variances or exceptions are being requested under this proposal. Today, our proposal features redevelopment of the site with two, new two-story Class "A" office buildings, totaling 92,800 square feet. Parking would be provided in two levels of underground parking with eight surface parking spaces provided for visitor parking. The buildings would be dedicated to professional office use. just as they are today though with healthy, sustainable and energy efficient materials and systems in place. Please join us for an evening of information, sharing, and community input! It will be an interactive, open house format, where you will have a chance to talk directly with members of the development team. Your input is critical to shaping a project site that results in a neighborhood and community asset. So come, join us for an evening of engaging conversation and creative thinking! No Formal prose a "oin anytir 5rnf- 4,411m-.7, ,1`oi in nrii:ibl <;:lili Se{!Y'S jyr II.-_,�nla rQ ,(.y.-70k 'illo74r4['es (a„ 10;1-; AREA 4 Be!! Comments: Vist 11 401-405 Alberto Way Village —Neighborhood Open House Meeting Summary Tuesday, January 5, 2016 from 5:30 to 7pm o Townhouse community across from Los Gatos Commons G Open House at the Project site • 4 people in attendance o Concerned about Speeding on Alberto Way • Alberto Way Sight Distance Issue • How many employees will there be? With more employees, traffic will get worse. • Will the garage parking be available to the public? • Will the garage gates be open during the day and night? ▪ How will we secure the garage from homeless and crime? • Any idea what the Nearon office project will be doing at the end of Alberto Way? • Traffic signal tuning needs to be adjusted. Need more green time on Alberto Way. • How will large trucks make deliveries to the site during construction? o Where will the construction workers park during construction? ® Will there be monitoring of construction traffic, noise and pollution? What is timing of construction — start to end? • Project timeline? Access in/out of the site from Highway 9 and Alberto Way © Can anything be done about the stacking of cars getting out of Alberto Way in the am? o How many visitor parking spaces will there be in front of the building and in the garage? • How many people will travel to the site each day? AREA 5 401-405 Alberto Way Pueblo De Los Gotos—Neighborhood Open House Meeting Summary Wednesday, January 6, 2016 from 5:30 to 7pm Comments: • Townhouse community across from our Project • Open House at the Project site • 4 people in attendance • Concerned about Speeding on Alberto Way • Alberto Way Sight Distance Issue • How many employees will there be? With more employees, traffic will get worse. • Will the garage parking be available to the public? • How will we secure the garage from homeless and crime? • Any idea what the Nearon office project will be doing at the end of Alberto Way? • Will the views of the mountains behind the Project still be there as they are today? • Traffic signal timing needs to be adjusted. Need more green time on Alberto Way. • How will large trucks make deliveries to the site during construction? • Where will the construction workers park during construction? • Will there be monitoring of construction traffic, noise and pollution? • What is timing of construction — start to end? • Project timeline? a Access in/out of the site from Highway 9 and Alberto Way • Can anything be done about the stacking of cars getting out of Alberto Way in the am? • How many visitor parking spaces will there be in front of the building and in the garage? • How many people will travel to the site each day? _ o s 5-3o-7p�-�,� 1-405.. t Way b. rfl. :; SIGN -IN SHEET r �,{ Name: �j Ic' 11` Address: 1 'i k Lc, C\A,c' \461 Name:.._._ ' Vr c A-cLI- e Address: E7 2— C ((c: t4 L Email: Email: Phone: 6 At -To Phone: Name: 4V/61,1 / Email: pe/r2,e2/e i t[ / C or r� U('1�� Address: 17&fC5 ` C (,tl V Phone: Name: ,,,P I Si Email: Address: I Q F) i,! CL� C4£. - _ Phone: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Email: Email: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Phone: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Phone: DLC� -2att (4, S 3O7 - Wav SIGN -IN SHEET Name: ivy( � f i Email: Cit- I— rr3rii-fl,e,ti&.. Address: Z Pao " VV U i ? E ISO 3 Phone: C �ji0 - C19 2 ' 6 a_ Name: Address: Name: Address: Email: Email: Phone: Name: Email: Address: Name: Email: Address: Name: Email: Address: Name: Email: Address: Name: Email: Address: Name: Email: Address: Name: Email: Address: Name: Email: Address: Name: Email: Address: Name: Email: Address: Phone: Phone: Phone: Phone: Phone: Phone: Phone: Phone: Phone: Phone: Phone: Mail Address 61 Mariposa Ave 371 Bella Vista Ave 21060 Homestead Rd 21060 Homestead Rd 355 Bella Vista Ave 19336 Monte Vista Dr 185 Cuesta De Los Gatos 195 Cuesta De Los Gatos 355 Bella Vista Ave 112 Cuesta De Los Gatos 185 Cuesta De Los Gatos 179 Cuesta De Los Gatos Po Box 3005 175 Cuesta De Los Gatos 129 Treseder Ct 125 Treseder Ct 121 Treseder Ct 117 Treseder Ct 113 Treseder Ct 109 Treseder Ct 16404 E La Chiquita Ave 101 Cuesta De Los Gatos 165 Montclair Dr 100 Cuesta De Los Gatos 104 Cuesta De Los Gatos 4825 Kingdale Dr 108 Cuesta De Los Gatos 112 Cuesta De Los Gatos Mail City Los Gatos Los Gatos Cupertino Cupertino Los Gatos Saratoga Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Olympic Valley Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Santa Cruz Los Gatos Los Gatos San Jose Los Gatos Los Gatos Mail St Mail CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA ZIP Code Owner 1 95030 Maggi Living Trust 95032 Current Resident 95014 Cupertino Development Corporat 95014 Bella Vista Village Homeowners 95032 Current Resident 95070 Melehan Jaynes S & Patricia E 95032 Mazumdar Sanjay 95032 Cala Salvatore A 95032 Current Resident 95032 Bast Clifford C & Julie D 95032 Parsons Edward W 95032 Hung Pei -Jean 96146 Stepner David & Judie 95032 Current Resident 95032 Borrison Kristine A 95032 Yemoto Wesley Paul 95032 Thomas Colleen A 95032 Franklin Shelly 95032 Ogawa Stuart &Chen-Ogawa, Jane 95032 Kauffman Rennis H & Bonna S 95032 Panyan Johanna W 1991 Trust 95032 Current Resident 95060 Mccullough Ellen N 95032 Current Resident 95032 Seif Gholamali & Afagh 95124 Wong Perry R 95032 Current Resident 95032 Moreau -fox Sylvie J 4 2465 De La Cruz Blvd 116 Cuesta De Los Gatos 120 Cuesta De Los Gatos 124 Cuesta De Los Gatos 22605 Salem Ave 128 Cuesta De Los Gatos 4724 Cordoba Way 132 Cuesta De Los Gatos 7782 E fledgling Dr 134 Cuesta De Los Gatos 136 Cuesta De Los Gatos 138 Cuesta De Los Gatos 21060 Homestead Rd 166 Cuesta De Los Gatos 168 Cuesta De Los Gatos 170 Cuesta De Los Gatos. 174 Cuesta De Los Gatos 176 Cuesta De Los Gatos 178 Cuesta De Los Gatos 182 Cuesta De Los Gatos 186 Cuesta De Los Gatos 190 Cuesta De Los Gatos 194 Cuesta De Los Gatos 198 Cuesta De Los Gatos 195 Cuesta De Los Gatos 164 Maggi Ct 162 Maggi Ct 160 Maggi Ct 17751 Vista Ave Santa Cara Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Cupertino Los Gatos Oceanside Los Gatos Scottsdale Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Cupertino Los Gatos Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA AZ CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA Monte Sereno CA 95050 Melehan Joseph P 95032 Current Resident 95032 Gullo David L 95032 Ilkbahar Aysen 95014 Altmaier Richard & Paulette 95032 Current Resident 92056 Liou IVlendy 95032 Current Resident 85255 Clark John 95032 Current Resident 95032 Hughes Anne 95032 Bryan John W & Jennifer D 95014 Bella Vista Village Homeowners 95032 Imam Mohammed S & Anoopma 95032 Kim Eliot & Lee -Kim, Julia S 95032 Lutgert Robin L 95032 Kemp Melanie A 95032 Matacco Scott & Gretchen J 95032 Kennedy Kolleen 95032 Vaccarello Richard H 95032 Anderson Robert C & Deborah P 95032 Sedgwick Grant & Robin 95032 Parfitt Mary B 95032 Moon Stephanie L 95032 Hart Sharon 95032 Murphy Paul F 95032 Singh Ravi & Minal B 95032 Corral Edgar &Carmona, Janet 95030 Doyle Ciaran T & Jane E 158 Maggi Ct Los Gatos CA 95032 Current Resident 156 Maggi Ct Los Gatos CA 95032 Lown Kenneth A & Mary A 154 Maggi Ct Los Gatos CA 95032 Chin Debra 152 Maggi Ct Los Gatos CA 95032 Stulski Vitaliy 150 Maggi Ct Los Gatos CA 95032 Badame Mary & Tillman, Patrick 148 Maggi Ct Los Gatos CA 95032 Williamson Nicholas P & Laura A 146 Maggi Ct Los Gatos CA 95032 Straight Forrest 144 Maggi Ct Los Gatos CA 95032 Schweickert William & Stratulate, Renee 18599 Lyons Ct Saratoga CA 95070 Sanzgiri Ajit 142 Maggi Ct Los Gatos CA 95032 Current Resident 140 Maggi Ct Los Gatos CA 95032 Barnia F-ledayat & Marjan ►Vdail Address 175 Highland Ave 420 Alberto Way 1 151 Eastridge Dr 420 Alberto Way 2 420 Alberto Way #4 420 Alberto Way #6 420 Alberto Way #8 16025 Greenridge Ter 420 Alberto Way 12 420 Alberto Way #52 17800 Soda Springs Rd 420 Alberto Way 50 420 Alberto Way #46 420 Alberto Way #44 420 Alberto Way #42 3190 S Bascom Ave #200 420 Alberto Way 40 733 Old Orchard Rd 420 Alberto Way 39 420 Alberto Way #38 420 Alberto Way #36 420 Alberto Way #34 420 Alberto Way #32 20600 Canyon View Dr 420 Alberto Way 30 109 E Hilton Dr 420 Alberto Way 28 420 Alberto Way #26 Mail City Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos San Jose Los Gatos Campbell Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Saratoga Los Gatos Boulder Creek Los Gatos Los Gatos Mail State CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA Mail ZIP Code 95030 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95033 95032 95032 95032 95030 95124 95032 95008 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95070 95032 95006 95032 95032 Owner 1 Hobson Nadine Current Resident Spiteri Ralph J & Laverne C Current Resident Rolle Nichole A Spence Dolores Holland Andrew Pragastis Panagiotis & Lynn Current Resident Prince Janet Hamm James F & Norma P Current Resident Filice Christine M Cathey Cathy J Current Resident Bawden Charles A & Robinson, Kenneth Current Resident Graziano Rosa A Current Resident Huynh Duc White Charles A & Miller, Julia Rich Andrew & Knudsen, Andrea Dixon Margaret L Demartini A Kirch & Sharon J Current Resident Pierce Paula M Current Resident Sato Paulette 420 Alberto Way #24 655 Coe Ave 420 Alberto Way 22 16251 Shannon Rd 420 Alberto Way 20 420 Alberto Way #18 860 Virginia Ave 420 Alberto Way 16 420 Alberto Way #14 6224 Belmont Cir 420 Alberto Way 3 13385 Surrey Ln 420 Alberto Way 5 420 Alberto Way #7 999 Mazzone Dr 420 Alberto Way 9 Po Box 41513 420 Alberto Way 10 420 Alberto Way #11 420 Alberto Way #13 37 Kidds Way 420 Alberto Way 53 420 Alberto Way #51 6550 Crystal Springs Dr 420 Alberto Way 49 420 Alberto Way #48 420 Alberto Way #47 1038 Wranglers Trail Rd 420 Alberto Way 45 Los Gatos San Jose Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Campbell Los Gatos Los Gatos Mount Airy Los Gatos Saratoga Los Gatos Los Gatos San Jose Los Gatos San Jose Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Stonington Los Gatos Los Gatos San Jose Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Pebble Beach Los Gatos CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA MD CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CT CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA 95032 Wittmayer Adam J 95125 Smith Joan H 95032 Current Resident 95032 Sajjadi Hamed & Azar 95032 Current Resident 95032 Scott Jannette 95002 Azad (Cathryn Trust 95032 Current Resident 95032 Tegger Carollynn 21771 Benet Charles A & Elsbeth 95032 Current Resident 95070 Fireman Paul L & Kay K 95032 Current Resident 95032 Brett Declan 95120 Szabo Edward 0 & Diane P 95032 Current Resident 95160 Corbisiero Samuel A & Linda R 95032 Current Resident 95032 Harman Shaun & Raminder, Cheema 95032 Curtis Christopher V 06378 Carroll Alan E & Donna L 95032 Current Resident 95032 Bonney Susan 95120 Fiorentino Joseph A & Bette A 95032 Current Resident 95032 Ashburn Matthew P 95032 Roxborough Katherine R & Ben 93953 Cannizzaro Anthony J & Margaret J 95032 Current Resident 420 Alberto Way #43 420 Alberto Way #41 420 Alberto Way #37 854 Via Seco 420 Alberto Way 35 420 Alberto Way #33 420 Alberto Way #31 62 Broadway 420 Alberto Way 29 420 Alberto Way #27 1708 Lollie Ct 420 Alberto Way 25 11547 Green Valley Rd 420 Alberto Way 23 10280 Pacific Ct 420 Alberto Way 21 420 Alberto Way #19 420 Alberto Way #17 104 Loma Alta Ave 420 Alberto Way 15 715 Michael St 420 Alberto Way 13 Los Gatos CA Los Gatos CA Los Gatos CA Nipomo CA Los Gatos CA Los Gatos CA Los Gatos CA Los Gatos CA Los Gatos CA Los Gatos CA San Jose CA Los Gatos CA Sebastopol CA Los Gatos CA Plymouth CA Los Gatos CA Los Gatos CA Los Gatos CA Los Gatos CA Los Gatos CA Milpitas CA Los Gatos CA 95032 Melnik Sergey &Mairna, Shorina 95032 Granas Alexander & Carol S 95032 Bourgeois John A 93444 Morrone Charles L 95032 Current Resident 95032 Bartley Parastou 0 & Clint E 95032 Ou Qian 95030 Switzer Lucille M 95032 Current Resident 95032 Thorne Julie D 95124 Kellogg William G & Diane C 95032 Current Resident 95472 Cooper Gayle V 95032 Current Resident 95669 Francis Karen L 95032 Current Resident 95032 Jerome Katarzyna M 95032 Pitzer Mary A 95030 Liebthal Jennifer 95032 Current Resident 95035 Wiggen Pt 95032 Current Resident LPACC REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT RECEIVED AUG 03 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Neighborhood Outreach Table of Contents August 2, 2016 1. Outreach Map 2. July 18, 2016 Open House Outreach Meeting for Las Casitas Homeowners Association, 5:30-7:30 3. July 19, 2016 Open House Outreach Meeting for Los Gatos Commons Homeowners Association, 5:30-7:30 4. July 20, 2016 Open House Outreach Meeting for Bella Vista Homeowners Association, 5:30-7:30 5. July 21, 2016 Open House Outreach Meeting for Pueblo De Los Gatos Homeowners Association, 5:30-7:30 6. August 2, 2016 Phone call Meeting with Oaks Office Park Owner (Nearon Enterprises) *The above Community Outreach Meetings are in addition to 9 other Neighborhood Meetings we held with Alberto Way residents since September 2015. In total, LP Acquisitions has held 14 Neighborhood Meetings which Planning has received copies of such with every resubmittal. Please see the February 10, 2016 resubmittal for documentation of the other 9 meetings. EXHIBIT 9 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, Menlo Park, CA 94025 650.326.1600 ' • 1T w • UTR A A r, Rileu 201 Open House Summary Las Casitas Homeowner Association July 18, 2016 This is a summary of comments from the HOA members who attended the Open House: o Can we move the 405 building further away from the common fence between our properties? • Can we screen Las Casitas from the 405 building with fast growing evergreen trees? e What sound will come from the cars entering and exiting the parking garage? O What did we do to lessen the sound from cars entering the garage? • What will traffic be like with the project? e What will sound issues be during construction as people there work from home? What will sound issues be after construction? • What will construction air quality issues be? o How will we manage construction traffic, deliveries and dirt off -haul from the site? Name: Lr. r Set. C-rli Address: 4J b?f 6 wcy Name: Address: Name: IDS, 2.042 Las ,S 1s Cnwiru Email: Email: f 66-tni,(e1,✓. Phone: Address: Name: Email: Phone: Address: Name: Email: Phone: Address: Name: Email: Phone: Address: Name: Email: Phone: Address: Name: Email: Phone: Address: Name: Email: Phone: Address: Name: Email: Phone: Address: Name: Email: Phone: Address: Name: Email: Phone: Address: Name: Email: Phone: Address: Email: Phone: Phone: l C�t��T3�S Boiandi Jaleh & Esfandiar CoUgoule Cynthia C & Jeffrey R Martin Bradford 55 Partners Lic Rufanov Roman V & Victoriya A Yonaka Elise M Russell Geraldine A Gafney Timothy J & Kristy L Drew Michael & Jill Prostota Yuri Patton Laura R Cahn Susan R Friedman Sheri Morelli Joe & Sandy Scheuerlein Roy E & Andrea R Gherardi Lisa Butler Gerald Trust Wen Ren Gang & Lin Cindy 435 Alberto Way 1 435 Alberto Way 2 435 Alberto Way 3 435 Alberto Way 4 435 Alberto Way 5 435 Alberto Way 6 435 Alberto Way 7 435 Alberto Way 8 435 Alberto Way 9 435 Alberto Way 10 435 Alberto Way 11 435 Alberto Way 12 435 Alberto Way 13 435 Alberto Way 14 435 Alberto Way 15 435 Alberto Way 16 435 Alberto Way 17 435 Alberto Way 18 Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 p �} We Want Input •: ?t;,. 1.R a'y S L i a� 1 11w`k"urs�ra .eJhir 111 lilt El Oft, .. III Mti pr'= 1 Neighborhood Open House LP Acquisitions, LLC is embarking on a major effort to define a new beginning for the office bulldogs et 401.405 Alberto Way After a ten-month evaluation process. we ere in the process of relining our conceptual plans for the redevelopment of the 2.15-acre site We have made great progress, and the nett step is to hear from youl We have taken great care in developing a concept For redevelopment of the site That will fully comply with the Towns General Plan Goals and Policies In Fact, no special requests. considerations, venences or exceptions are being requested under this prapesaL Today, our proposal features redevelopment of the site with two, new two story Class A office buildings, totaling 91,800 aquaria feet Parking would be provided in two levels of underground perking with tight surface parking spaces provided for visitor parking The buildings would be dedicated to professional office rare, just as they are today though with healthy, sustainable and energy efficient materials and systems en piece Please join us for en evening of mFra maban. sharing, and community input, It will be an interactive, open house format, whero you will have a chance to talk directly with members of the development team Your input is cnticaf to shaping a project site that results m a neighborhood and community asset So come, join us For an evening of engaging conversation and creative thinkingl • Neighborhood Open House LP Acquuaibona, LLC is embarking on a major effort to define a new beginning For the office buildings at 40,-405 Alberto Way. Alter a den -month evaluation process, via are in the process of refininngaus conceptual plans for the redevelopment of the 2.1541c11e site. We have made great progress. and the neat step is to hear tram youl We have taken ,great care in developing a concept For redevelopment of the site that roll Lay campfy with the Town's General Plan Goals end Policies In fact. no special requests. considerations, variances or exceptions ere being requested under this proposal. Today, our proposal features redevelopment of the site with two. new two-story Class A' office buildings, totakng 92,800 square feet Parking would be provided in two levels of underground parking with eight surface parking spaces provided for visitor perking The buildings would be dedicated to professional office use, just as they are Wiley though with healthy, sustainable and energy efficient materials end systems in piece. Please join us For an evening of information, shining, and community input! It will be an interactive, open house format, where you will have a chance to talk directly with members of the development team. Your input is critical to shaping a project site that results in a neighborhood and community asset. So come join us for en evening of engaging conversation and creative thinking) sT ..r, r.t'.,W si:-1' ;ai•I i711?- :i.:y ,t:A - - =i 1f ^�',�^ rkx :a} xlri• 1pT; :r raYFi[ r.Tkgt}1e, Open House Summary Los Gatos Commons Homeowner Association July 19, 2016 This is a summary of comments from the HOA members who attended the Open House: • What will traffic be like during construction? • What will the air quality impacts be during construction? • How will emergency vehicles access LGC in the event of an emergency? • Will we have traffic monitors at the site to control construction traffic? • Where will we store construction items for the site? • Would we be willing to meet weekly on safety issues for the neighborhood during construction? • How will the sidewalk areas be for walking for senior citizens? • Could we help with a shuttle to downtown for people who live on Alberto Way? • What will sound issues be during construction as people there work from home? • What will sound issues be after construction? • What will construction air quality issues be? • What will odors be like during construction? • How will we manage construction traffic, deliveries and dirt off -haul from the site? • How long will construction take? • What time will construction start each day? • Will construction be on weekends and holidays? • The buildings look too tall • The 401 building looks too close to the street • What traffic improvements are we adding to help cars get in and out of Alberto Way? • How many cars will come to the site compared to the existing office building? • Who did the EIR? • Who at the Town managed the EIR? • Is the project too big for the neighborhood? • Who will the future tenant be? • Seniors don't like fast moving cars when they are walking or driving. • Can we make the street a red zone so there is no parking allowed? • How can we slow cars down on Alberto Way? Name: Address: ti9' ,,4/hp r L'Ja . ,,g? flu Name: / S me w IV /i4 Address: qv /004 Address: Li-t4 c k A Name: Ra. f' t (L4 kt Y)as ka. j'}''].r� Email: Address: 43 9 6,8- '7" Zi z / 2- 6- 7,5V 3 Email: Email: Phone: 4 Phone: Nome: 37-4",- ks2__ ,\ C3+ _ Email: ' uX'r .C.C, YvA Phone: ` 4. .5 Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: nt 33 Phone: r eA�'1)e--(Aki.`L� itt4t 11 A U ,,'. tt i3�-� � -{t ! A3 Phone: 7-7-6 Email: 5 3 I A L, � Ci-►fly a* Phone: JL9 A- o 4z.Arim 2,0 e tit-4 Fo LJ bt- V sr bz L) 25,1 Arlrl`-17)1e-7 � t 1C -tLitt( av4 bviy, irt/if L. 6- Email: Email: Email: Phone: Phone: Email: c_ Phone: d Or at-t JP - Phone: `� Email: 5M,r/e/9a42 593 r-°, Email: C/4/r 6 / S Email: Phone: Phone: Phone: " 2- Lf 5 C ,- S CaM1k 3 Brown Judith A Boren Rita L Ripps Donna S Swanson Kathleen & Grant Schneider Linda Hedemark Charm Jensen Paul T Kaviani Alireza S Panighetti Irene Shoda Bernice Stark Dennis C & Judith W Martin Patsy J Klaben Anne & Martin Crist David W Guthrie Family Trust Figueroa Joseph A & Kathy A White Helen C & Stephen F Gundotra Vivek P & Claudia N Peregrina Patricia R Denissova Evguenia Hernandez Reginald P & Betty J Mangola Margaret B Johnson Ann Morrison Mary K Zambetti Marino Zimmerman Howard W) & Emil Dailey Matthew 0 Barnett Harlan H & Audrey R Moskaluk Raymond Weinstein Deborah Simmons Ilse P Ryan Shirley M Living Trust Hogan Alan P Bacigalupo Joseph A Lane Monya A Burns Maura L Mendicino Deborah E Thomson Euan S & Allison J Hamidi Samira Jordan Investment Trust Mittelstet John 439 Alberto Way A103 439 Alberto Way 439 Alberto Way 104 439 Alberto Way A204 439 Alberto Way A105 439 Alberto Way 205 439 Alberto Way A106 439 Alberto Way A206 439 Alberto Way A107 439 Alberto Way A207 439 Alberto Way A101 439 Alberto Way A201 439 Alberto Way A102 439 Alberto Way A202 439 Alberto Way A110 439 Alberto Way 210 439 Alberto Way A109 439 Alberto Way 209 439 Alberto Way 108 439 Alberto Way A208 443 Alberto Way 8120 443 Alberto Way B220 443 Alberto Way B121 443 Alberto Way B221 443 Alberto Way B122 443 Alberto Way B222 441 Alberto Way 111 441 Alberto Way B112 441 Alberto Way B113 441 Alberto Way B114 443 Alberto Way B115 443 Alberto Way B215 443 Alberto Way B116 443 Alberto Way B216 443 Alberto Way B117 443 Alberto Way B217 443 Alberto Way B118 443 Alberto Way B218 443 Alberto Way B119 443 Alberto Way B219 443 Alberto Way B123 Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Los Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Gatos Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Los Gatos Ca 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 Hartley Barbara 1 443 Alberto Way Los Gatos Ca 95032 Greenband Anita 443 Alberto Way B124 Los Gatos Ca 95032 Hodges Gerry 443 Alberto Way B224 Los Gatos Ca 95032 We Want \Agrinput /ldtl9. /3(-7m§pm `kii .a • I p1f } g� G m.*145 1, — � - mirk �., Neighborhood Open House LP Acquisitions. LLC is embarking on a major effort to define a new beginning for the office buildings at 4Oi-4o5 Alberto Way After a ten-month evaluation process, we are in the process of re*nmg-our conceptual plans for the redevelopment of the 215-ace site. We have made great progress,and the next step is to hear from you! We have taken great care in developing a concept for redevelopment of the site that will fully comply wreh the Towns General Plan Goals end Policies in Fact no special requests, considerations, variances or exceptions are being requested under this proposal Today, our proposal features redevelopment of the site with two, new two-story Class "A" office buildings, totaling 92,800 square feet. Parking would be provided in two levels of underground parking with eight surface parking spaces provided far visitor parking The buildings would be dedicated to professional office use, just as they are today though with healthy, sustainable and energy effscient materials and systems in place Pleasejom us for an evening of information. sharing, and community input! It will be an interactive, open house format, where you will have a chance to talk directly with members of the development team. Your input is critical to shaping a project site that results in a neighborhood and community asset So come,;om us for an evening of engaging conversation and creative thinkingt • i74+-94.,-*1-, Neighborhood Open Nouse LP Acquisitions, LLC Va embarking on a major effort to define a new be,gnrnng for the office buifdings at 401405 Alberto Way After a ten•mcnth evaluation process, we are in the process of rebmng our conceptual plans for the redevelopment of the 2.15-acre site We have made great progress, end the next step is to hear from you, We have taken great care in developing a concept for redevelopment of the site that will fully comply with the Towns General Plan Goals and Policies In fact, no special requests, considerations, variances or exceptions are being requested under this. proposal Today, our proposal features redevelopment of the site with two,new two-story Class "A office buildings, totaling 92,&0O square feet. Parking would Inc provided in two level, of underground parking with eight surface parking spaces provided for visitor parking. The buildings would be dedicated to professional office use, just as they are today though with healthy, sustainable and energy efficient materiels end systems in place. Please join us for en evening of information, sharing and community input! It wilt be an interactive, open house format. whore you will have a chance to talk directly with members of the development team Your input is critical to shaping a project site that results in a neighborhood and community asset, 5o some, join us for an e,-ening of engaging conversation end creative thinking! §•iey*ff:Fly}}'-: rtt tr:.Y; '_;e�I F'•� i$:•t '-{-..F -- �'.�3gi e. eiVA "rI1 n'f:.;•l7.41. • 'ilk 1 Open House Summary Bella Vista Village Homeowner Association July 20, 2016 This is a summary of comments from the HOA members who attended the Open House: ® What will traffic be like during construction? • What will the air quality impacts be during construction? • How will emergency vehicles access LGC in the event of an emergency? • Will we have traffic monitors at the site to control construction traffic? • Where will we store construction items for the site? ® How will the sidewalk areas be for walking? • What will sound issues be during construction as people there work from home? • What will sound issues be after construction? • What will construction air quality issues be? • How will we manage construction traffic, deliveries and dirt off -haul from the site? • How long will construction take? • What time will construction start each day? • Will construction be on weekends and holidays? • The buildings look too tall • The building massing is too big as is the project. • The 401 building looks too close to the street • What will landscape screening be out front? o What traffic improvements are we adding to help cars get in and out of Alberto Way? • How many cars will come to the site compared to the existing office building? • Who did the EIR? • Who at the Town managed the EIR? • The traffic counts seem incorrect. • How do the traffic people measure actual car counts? • National traffic statistics don't work in Los Gatos. • Is the project too big for the neighborhood? • Does it really feel like a Los Gatos project? • Who will the future tenant be? • Do not remove street parking as many BV owners use the street for parking. o How can we slow cars down on Alberto Way? h 71 0/(67 Name: , a / AddresserE Phone: 61, Name: Address: 1--1 Name: Add ress: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: bl 5at)Ernail: eirto(kfilato 6, u.A4 ( IfLA COI it, s ciA Phone: \ikca4CLW1 Email: (11"‘Ct 'ACC- e_ CON CiticrT AKr CkAi_SA-6- 1-6 PcV-0 Siva Cnyview Cm QS Email: Email: Phone: ,EAROGimirs) VM-foo CON Phone: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Phone: Maggi Living Trust Current Resident Cupertino Development Corporat Bella Vista Village Homeowners Current Resident Melehan James S & Patricia E Mazumdar Sanjay Cala Salvatore A Current Resident Bast Clifford C & Julie D Parsons Edward W Hung Pei -Jean Stepner David & Judie Current Resident Borrison Kristine A Yemoto Wesley Paul Thomas Colleen A Franklin Shelly Ogawa Stuart &Chen-Ogawa, Jane Kauffman Rennis H & Bonna S Panyan Johanna W 1991 Trust Current Resident Mccullough Ellen N Current Resident Seif Gholamali & Afagh Wong Perry R Current Resident Moreau -fox Sylvie J Melehan Joseph P Current Resident Gullo David L llkbahar Aysen Altmaier Richard & Paulette Current Resident Liou Mendy Y Current Resident Clark John Current Resident Hughes Anne Bryan John W & Jennifer D Bella Vista Village Homeowners 371 Bella Vista Ave Los Gatos Ca 371 Bella Vista Ave 355 Bella Vista Ave 371 Bella Vista Ave 371 Bella Vista Ave 355 Bella Vista Ave Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca 355 Bella Vista Ave Los Gatos Ca 185 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 179 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 175 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 129 Cuesta De Los Gatos 125 Treseder Ct 121 Treseder Ct 117 Treseder Ct 113 Treseder Ct 109 Treseder Ct 101 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca 100 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 104 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 108 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 112 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 116 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 120 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 124 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 128 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 132 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 134 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 136 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca 138 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca Imam Mohammed S & Anoopma Kim Eliot & Lee -Kim, Julia S Lutgert Robin L Kemp Melanie A Matacco Scott & Gretchen J Kennedy Kolleen Vaccarello Richard H Anderson Robert C & Deborah P Sedgwick Grant & Robin Parfitt Mary 8 Moon Stephanie L Hart Sharon Murphy Paul F Singh Ravi & Minal B Corral Edgar &Carmona, Janet Doyle Ciaran T &Jane E Current Resident Lawn Kenneth A & Mary A Chin Debra Stulski Vitally Badame Mary & Tillman, Patrick Williamson Nicholas P & Laura A Straight Forrest Schweickert William & Stratulate, Renee Sanzgiri Ajit Current Resident Barnia Hedayat & Marjan 166 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos 168 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos 170 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos 174 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos 176 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos 178 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos 182 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos 186 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos 190 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos 194 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos 198 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos 195 Cuesta De Los Gatos Los Gatos 164 Maggi Ct Los Gatos 162 Maggi Ct Los Gatos 160 Maggi Ct Los Gatos 158 Maggi Ct Los Gatos 156 Maggi Ct 154 Maggi Ct 152 Maggi Ct 150 Maggi Ct 148 Maggi Ct 146 Maggi Ct 144 Maggi Ct 142 Maggi Ct 140 Maggi Ct Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca 1 1 7-77 11‘ NAZI Neighborhood Open House LP Acquisitions, LLC is embarking on a major effort to define a new beginning for the office buildings at 407-405 Alberto Way After a ten-month evaluation process, we are in the process of refining our conceptual plans for the redevefopment of the 2.15"acre site We have made great progress, and the next step is to hear from youl We have taken great care es developing a concept for redevelopment of the site that will fully comply with the Town's General Plan Goals and Policies In fact, no spacial requests, considerations, variances or exceptions are being requested under this preposai Today, our proposal features redevelopment of the site with two, new two-story Class "A" office buildings, totaling 42,800 square feet Parking would be provided in two levels of underground parking with eightsurface parking spaces provided for vfartor parking The buildings would be dedicated to professional office use, just es they are today though with healthy, sustainable and energy efficient matenals and systems in place Please join us for an evening of information, sharing, and community irtputl It will he en interactive, open house fermet, where you will havea chance to talk directly with members of the development team. Vour inputs critical to shaping a protect site that results in a neighborhood and eomrnumty asset So Come, jern us tor an evening of engaging conversation and creative thinking, Neighborhood Open House LP Acquiaitions, LLC is embarking on a major effort to define a new beginning far the office buildings et 401•405 Alberto. Way After a ten-month evaluation process, we ere in the process of refining our conceptual plans for tkeredevelopment of the 2.15-acre site We have made great progress. and the next step is to hear from youl We have taken great care in developing a concept for redevelopment of the site that will fully comply with the Town's General Plan Goals and Policies In fact, no special requests, considerations. variances or exceptions are beingrequestedunder this proposal Today, our proposal features redevelopment of the site with Iwo, new two-story Class "A° office buildings, totaling 92,800 square feat Parking would be provided in Iwo levels of underground parking with eight surface parking spaces provided for visitor parking. The buildings would be dedicated to professional oRtce use. just as they are today thoughwithhealthy, sustainable and energy eft cient mate Isla and systems in place. Please join us for an evening of information, sharing, end community input) It will be an interactive, open house format, where you will have a chance to talk directly with members of the development team Your input se critical to shaping a project site that results in a neighborhood and community asset So come, join us Ior an evening of engaging conversation and creative thinking) .1, :} j, :JT-as;fkr i•Yi: ,i�r'•1 L. ,,-.r,t.+ k 9 � 9 era f `:1rtk lrrc -s.a h�.•ttt ,J1icr?=:s°t)7rt 3s^ era U w.rr. t' o-=I fir:; "e. ; 1l'y M lot • Open House Summary Pueblo Los Gatos Homeowner Association July 21, 2016 This is a summary of comments from the HOA members who attended the Open House: • What will traffic be like during construction? • What will the air quality impacts be during construction? • How will emergency vehicles access LGC in the event of an emergency? • Will we have traffic monitors at the site to control construction traffic? • Where will we store construction items for the site? • How will the sidewalk areas be for walking? • What will sound issues be during construction as people there work from home? • What will sound issues be after construction? • What will construction air quality issues be? • How will we manage construction traffic, deliveries and dirt off -haul from the site? • How long will construction take? • What time will construction start each day? • Will construction be on weekends and holidays? • The buildings look too tall • The building massing is too big as is the project. • The 401 building looks too close to the street • Views of the Western foothills are now hidden by the buildings • Could we create a dog park in the front of the project or on the north side? • What will landscape screening be out front? • What traffic improvements are we adding to help cars get in and out of Alberto Way? • How many cars will come to the site compared to the existing office building? • Why are there only 7 visitor parking spaces out front? • Can neighborhood residents park in the parking garage at any time? • Why will the new project be more safe than the current project? • How do we lower the height of the buildings? • Who did the EIR? • Who at the Town managed the EIR? • The traffic counts seem incorrect. • How do the traffic people measure actual car counts? • National traffic statistics don't work in Los Gatos. • Is the project too big for the neighborhood? • Does it really feel like a Los Gatos project? • Who will the future tenant be? ▪ Will neighbors be allowed to use the site during off -hours for gathering? Do not remove street parking as many BV owners use the street for parking. @ How can we slow cars down on Alberto Way? Name: Address: Name: Address: Name.\ Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: crka a) Email: (Ma veil 4, tof, 6J5 1,.0 s 60S6 Phon. :ray ck2 loeN �6 kPAACr-�kr ;\.) ,\/\o\a `c�`MMQ\-\, Phone: Email: Email: Phone: 'IN- 1\-143( 1 ( Email: G _ ]"vb-e- C.4 6,2yrtL l ICC C)1VAddress: qr ejTO Ujceer `—) Phone: i Name: 7-74 '✓ + aC%✓� Email: �i�(� AM/ 6,-.5-'bid.) Vt� 14;2c, (1-4 L)v3, I `� Phone: v1�Y yl �� (v �% 7/,1' ' 7/la,iL (/r 1t/4 ( t� Ad _Ado wtt L6_ VHL ck 44t._ 1.) civi--0544 co-1,„ Phone: f 0 u%j 7 F-7 Email: one: & Qq/ b / 3 0 Email: 14/C7/6 &I ij fr 4r f z Phone: it9J 7ft ' Email: Email: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Email: Phone: Phone: (vja, 4 `h11 00ch 1 0 ipegie_ct6i2 1E,-15} ,inl �,� �CJL41i'1{�fo e1 r ) /11,12 5 L 0 S Hobson Nadine Current Resident Spiteri Ralph J & Laverne C Current Resident Rolle Nichole A Spence Dolores Holland Andrew Pragastis Panagiotis & Lynn Current Resident Prince Janet Hamm James F & Norma P Current Resident Filice Christine M Cathey Cathy 1 Current Resident Bawden Charles A & Robinson, Kenneth Current Resident Graziano Rosa A Current Resident Huynh Duc White Charles A & Miller, Julia Rich Andrew & Knudsen, Andrea Dixon Margaret L Demartini A Kirch & Sharon J Current Resident Pierce Paula M Current Resident Sato Paulette Wittmayer Adam J Smith Joan H Current Resident Sajjadi Hamed & Azar Current Resident Scott Jannette Azad Kathryn Trust Current Resident Tegger Carollynn Benet Charles A & Elsbeth Current Resident Fireman Paul L & Kay K Current Resident 420 Alberto Way 1 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 2 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 4 420 Alberto Way 6 420 Alberto Way 8 420 Alberto Way 12 Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 52 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 50 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 46 Los Gatos 420 Alberto Way 44 Los Gatos 420 Alberto Way 42 Los Gatos 420 Alberto Way 40 Los Gatos Ca Ca Ca Ca 420 Alberto Way 39 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 38 420 Alberto Way 36 420 Alberto Way 34 420 Alberto Way 32 420 Alberto Way 30 Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Los Gatos Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca 420 Alberto Way 28 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 26 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 24 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 22 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 20 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 18 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 16 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 14 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 3 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 5 Los Gatos Ca 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 Brett Declan Szabo Edward 0 & Diane P Current Resident Corbisiero Samuel A & Linda R Current Resident Harman Shaun & Raminder, Cheema Curtis Christopher V Carroll Alan E & Donna L Current Resident Bonney Susan Fiorentino Joseph A & Bette A Current Resident Ashburn Matthew P Roxborough Katherine R & Ben Cannizzaro Anthony J & Margaret J Current Resident Melnik Sergey &Mairna, Shorina Granas Alexander & Carol 5 Bourgeois John A Morrone Charles L Current Resident Bartley Parastou 0 & Clint E 0u Qian Switzer Lucille M Current Resident Thorne Julie D Kellogg William G & Diane C Current Resident Cooper Gayle V Current Resident Francis Karen L Current Resident Jerome Katarzyna M Pitzer Mary A Liebthal Jennifer Current Resident Wiggen Pt Current Resident 420 Alberto Way 7 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 9 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 10 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 11 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 13 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 53 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 51 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 49 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 48 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 47 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 45 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 43 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 41 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 37 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 35 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 33 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 31 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 29 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 27 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 25 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 23 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 21 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 19 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 17 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 15 Los Gatos Ca 420 Alberto Way 13 Ca 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95032 95035 Want input Neighborhood Open House LP Acquisitors, LLC is embarking on a major effort to define a -new beginning for the clfice buildings at 40T-405 Alberto VYay, Our proposal features redevelopment of the see with two new two-story Class 'A" office buildings, totaling 92,800.square feet. Perking would be provided in two levels of underground parking with eight surface parking spaces provided for visitor parking. We have taken great care In developing a concept for redevelopment of the site that will fully comply with the Town's General Plan Goats and Policies The buildings would be dedicated to professional office use, Just as they are today though with healthy, sustainable and energy efficient materials and systems in place. The Town of Los Gatos will be meeting in early August to evaluate the project You will see "Story Poles" installed at the site tater this week, es required by the Town in it's review process. For more information please visit our websie atxww.401albertoway.com Please join us for an evening of irtformatlon shanng and community input' It will be an interactive, open house format, where you will have a chance to talk directly with members of the development team. Your input is critical to shaping a project site that results in a neighborhood and community asset. So please Join us for an evening of engaging conversation and creative thinkingi H k (Iti.aiLT0; r,.x.t,.:r;•-,rt-,_..wit ei Neighborhood Open House LP Acquisitions, LLC is embarking on a major effort 10 define a new beginning for the office buildings at 401-405 Alberto Way. Our proposal features redevelopment of the site with two new trio -story Class "A' office buildings, totaling 92,600 square feet, Parking would be provided in two levels of underground parking with eight surface parking spaces provided for visitor parking. We have taken great taro in developing e concept far redevelopment of the see that wit fitly comply with the Town's General Plan Goals and Policies. The buildings would be dedicated to professional office use, lust as they am today though with healthy, sustainable and energy efficient materials and systems io place. The Town of Los Gatos will be meeting an early August to evaluate the project. You will see "Story Poles" installed at the site later this week, as inquired by the Town in it's review process For more information please visit our websne at www.401alberlcway coin Please join us for an evening of information sharing and community mine It wilt be an interactive, open house format, where you will have a chance to talk directly with members of the development team, Your input is critical to shaping a project site that results in a neighborhood and community asset. So please loin us for an evening at engaging conversation and creative thinking, Phone Call Summary, Nick Rici, Nearon Enterprises, Owner of Alberto Oaks Office Park August 2, 2016 This is a summary of comments from the conversation by phone today with Nick Rici: • I described our design process and the look and feel now. • I explained the town running a full EIR and the minimal impacts found in the EIR • He asked about the traffic impacts of our site and the mitigation measures the EIR requested. He understands the left turn lane extension from LGS onto Alberto Way, and the new three lanes at the entrance to Alberto Way from LGS. He wanted to know if our project would be general office. I answered yes and that we were not interested in medical uses. ® Overall he seemed pleased with our plans and was going to review them internally and get back to us with questions. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist .Service since 1984 ARBORIST REPORT Tree inventory, Tree Descriptions and Recommendations Relative to Proposed Construction 401-409 Alberto Way Los Gatos, California Prepared for: Marni Moseley Town of Los Gatos Community Planning Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Prepared by: Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Registered Consulting Arborist #305, American Society of Consulting Arborists Board Certified Master Arborist WE-0457B, International Society of Arboriculture Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022, American Society for Horticultural Science SEPTEMBER 26, 2015 Report History: This is my first report for this project. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357, decah®pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. • Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Table of Contents TREE MAP 1 SUMMARY 2 The Project 2 The Existing Trees and how the Project will affect them 2 Table 1 Summary Tree Table 3 RECOMMENDATIONS 5 INTRODUCTION 8 Purpose & Use of Report 8 Plans Reviewed 9 METHODOLOGY 10 OBSERVATIONS 11 Site Conditions 11 APPENDIX .12 Table 3 Complete Tree Table 12 Explanation of Tree Table Data Columns: 21 Tree Root Protection Distances 26 Los Gatos Tree Protection Requirements 27 Tree Photos 32 Assumptions & Limitations 35 Enclosures* 37 References' 37 Glossary 38 Cover photo: southeast corner of the property, Alberto Way in the foreground and looking toward Saratoga -Los Gatos Boulevard in the background. Several of the subject trees are labeled with their tree tag numbers. All photos in this report were taken by b. Ellis on September 18, 2015. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 TREE MAP LEGEND n Save * Debatable X Remove 510 52 3 54 55* HIGHWAY %7 47 2$ 49 48* 50 4 X46 34 45X FF-339.0 44 XUILDING B X 43 X 42 41 X40 39 ALBERTO WAY X 27 31X i 33 X32 25 2 6 x29 X 30 FF=338.0 BUILDING A X 22 JLL 15 17 1 X15 X6� 1 X7, ar 13 I 12 .X 11 -, 8 14 A" ounro 23 4 3 2 PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decoh@pacbell.net. http://www.decoh.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 1 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist .5'erc Rcc since 1984 SUMMARY THE PROJECT An existing commercial office complex will be demolished and replaced with the same, including an underground garage. THE EXISTING TREES AND HOW THE PROJECT WILL AFFECT THEM Sixty (60) protected trees' are listed and described in this report. Most of these trees are located on the project site, but some trees are on property that is adjacent to the site. Due to the extensive renovation of the site, including the underground garage and completely new landscaping, it appears that at least 52 of these trees will need to be removed. I have listed 6 trees (#23, 47, 55, 56, 57 and 59) as "Debatable" because I am uncertain of the impact of construction on them. Most of these trees are boundary line trees2 or are located on adjacent property. It should be possible to save two of these trees, #50 and #51, which are off -property but whose canopies overhang the project site. A summary of all trees is provided in Table 1 on page 3, and a more detailed description of the trees is provided in Table 3 (the Complete Tree Table) beginning on page 12. The Complete Tree Table also provides recommended minimum root protection distances for those trees that will or may be saved, as well as other important information about individual trees. The Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Requirements are included on pages 27 through 32. I have also attached a separate copy of these Requirements, which must be included in the final project bid plan set. It is important to note that trees on neighboring sites whose canopies overhang the site must be protected in the same manner as trees that will remain on the project site. Most of the best existing trees for the site are actually not located on the site but on adjacent property to the south and west; particularly the large coast live oaks #47, SO, 51 and 57. It should be possible to save oaks #50 and 51, but oaks #47 and 57 are listed as "debatable" due to uncertainty about construction impacts to these trees. ' For the purpose of this report a Protected tree is: all trees which have a (4) four -inch or greater diameter of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required. Exceptions are: fruit or nut trees that less than eighteen (18) inches in diameter or any of the following species that are less than 24 inches in diameter: black acacia (Acacia melanaxylon), tulip tree (Linodendran to/ipifera), tree -of- Heaven (Ailanthus a/tiss/ma), Tasmanian blue gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus g/obu/us), Red River gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldu/ens/s), other Eucalyptus species (E. spp.) (Hillsides only), glossy privet (L gustrum lucidum)and and palms (except Phoenix canarlens/s). 2 Terms highlighted at their first occurrence in this resort are explained in the Glossary on pages 38 nd 39. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 2 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 TABLE 1 SUMMARY TREE TABLE This Table is continued through page 5. + indicates tree not tagged. *Denotes tree species native to the area within the vicinity of the site. Ail other tree species are not native to the immediate area. Tree Common Name Trunk Preservation Diam. Suitability aloe Expected Construction impact Action Reason `1 valley oak 8,2 Fair/Poor $970 Severe Remove Construction *2 coast live oak 7 Fair 1.040 Severe Remove Construction 3 olive 9,3,2 Fair/Poor 1,030 Severe Remove Construction 4 olive 3,6.10 Fair 1,680 Severe Remove Construction 5 crape myrtle 3" 4,5 Fair/Good 3.210 Severe Remove Construction 6 crape myrtle 8 (3) Good 1,310 Severe Remove Construction 7 crape myrtle 9 (3) Good 2,140 Severe Remove Construction 8 olive 7,8,9 Fair 2,620 Severe Remove Construction 9 olive 13,9 (3) Fair/Poor 2,580 Severe Remove Construction 10 sweet gum 15 Good 2,140 Severe Remove Construction 11 European white birch (birch) 11 Unacceptable 0 Severe Remove Construction/Overall Condition 12 sweet gum 15 Good 2,370 Severe Remove Construction 13 olive 15,18 (3) Fair 5,400 Severe Remove Construction 14 olive 7,9,10 Fair/Poor 2,940 Severe Remove Construction 15 birch 4 Good 640 Severe Remove Construction 16 birch 7 Fair 1,080 Severe Remove Construction 17 birch 5 Fair/Poor 450 Severe Remove Construction 18 birch 6 Fair/Poor 900 Severe Remove Construction 19 birch 6 Fair/Poor 990 Severe Remove Construction 20 birch 5 Fair/Poor 450 Severe Remove Construction 21 birch 5 Fair/Poor 410 Severe Remove Construction 22 olive 15 Fair/Poor 1,710 Severe Remove Construction 23 redwood 20,20 Fair 9,000Uncertain Debatable Construction PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pocbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way, September 26, 2015 Page 3 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Tree Common Name Trunk Diam. Preservation Suitability _ alue Expected Construction Impact Action Reason 24 olive 7,8 Fair 1,290 Severe Remove Construction 25 olive 6,2 Fair 1,170 Moderate/Severe Remove Construction *26 coast live oak 24 (3) Fair/Good 6,800 Severe Remove Construction 27 olive 5.6.6 Fair/'Poor 1.030 Severe Remove Construction *28 coast live oak 13 Fair/Good 2,540 Severe Remove Construction 29 Southem magnolia 9 Fair 990 Severe Remove Construction 30 Southern magnolia 7 Fair/Poor 900 Severe Remove Construction 31 New Zealand Christmas tree 7,8 Fair 2,810 Severe Remove Construction 32 'olive 6,7,7,10 Fair/Good 4.880 Severe Remove Construction 33 olive 11(3) Fair/Good 1.510 Severe Remove Construction 34 olive 12 (4) Good 1,960 Severe Remove Construction 35 Southern magnolia 11 (4) Fair/Poor 1,230 Severe Remove Construction 36 crape myrtle 7(4) Good 1,440 Severe Remove Construction 37 crape myrtle 7(4) Good 1,350 Severe Remove Construction 38 Raywood ash 14 Poor 920 Severe Remove Construction 39 sweet gum 13 Fair/Good 1,580 Severe Remove Construction 40 sweet gum -r 11 Fair 1,030 Severe Remove Construction 41 olive 6,6,7,9 Fair 3,680 Severe Remove Construction 42 olive 14 Fair/Good 2.240 Severe Remove Construction 43 olive 8,8,10 Fair 3,550 Severe Remove Construction 44 Brazilian pepper tree 7,8,9,10 Good 6,800 Severe Remove Construction 45 olive 14,9@3 (2) Fair/Poor 2,610 Severe Remove Construction 46 olive 14 (3) Fair 2,030 Severe Remove Construction *47+ coast live oak 22 Good 7,400 Uncertain Debatable Construction *48 coast live oak 6 Fair/Poor 810 Severe Remove Construction *49 coast live oak 8.11 Fair/Good 3,160 Severe Remove Construction *50+ coast live oak 26 (4) Good 1,1700 Moderate Save PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pocbell.net. http://www.decoh.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 4 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Tree # Common Name Trunk Guam, reservation Suitability alue Expected Construction Impact Action Reason *51+ coast live oak 24 Fair 9,400 Low/Moderate Save 52 Monterey pine 28 Fair/Poor 2,220 Severe Remove Construction/Overall Condition 53 Monterey pine 17 Poor 540 Severe Remove Construction/Overall Condition , 54 Monterey pine 23 Poor 1,290 Severe Remove Construction/Overall Condition , *55+ coast live oak 9 Fair/Poor 580 Uncertain Debatable Construction, Overall Condition' *56 coast live oak 8 Fair 450 Uncertain Debatable Construction, Structure *57 coast live oak 14 Good 2,830 Moderate/Severe Debatable Construction 1 58 redwood 16.17 Poor 3,660 Severe Remove Overall Condition, Construction! 59 redwood 23,24,39 Fair 25,300 Moderate/Severe Debatable Construction 60 California pepper tree 20 Fair/Good 3.490 Severe Remove Landscape Improvement RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Existing trees to be saved or removed should be numbered on all site -based plans to match the tree tag numbers that are used in this arborist report. Note that there are two sets of tags on some trees - the tags that were used to number the trees for this report and another set of tags that were placed on the trees prior to our tree survey on September 18, 2015. 2} Do not remove or prune to remove more than 25% of the live branches of any protected tree until a valid tree removal permit has been obtained from the Town of Los Gatos. 3) Trees listed as "Debatable" are: #23, 47, 55, 56, 57 and 59. Read about these 6 trees in the Notes Section of the Complete Tree Table in order to determine what to do with them (will they be saved or removed)? A "Debatable" designation means that there is a problem with retaining that tree, such as a tree that is shown to be saved but is a poor species for the site, or in poor condition. Another common cause is that the tree is shown to be saved but construction may be too close to it. The reason for the "Debatable" designation can be found in the "Reason" and "Notes" column of the Complete Tree Table. Additional action or decisions are necessary on the part of the tree owner, project architects or others involved in the project design and construction are necessary in order to resolve whether a debatable tree will be saved or removed. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357, decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah,com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 5 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service sink 1984 4) For those trees that will be retained on or adjacent to the project site, follow the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Requirements included in this report on pages 27 through 32. At this time only the following two trees will likely be saved: #50 and 51. A separate copy of the Directions is enclosed and must be incorporated into the project final plans. Additional tree protection information is also available from Deborah Ellis if necessary, These Directions shall replace any tree protection notes, specifications or other directions (including detail drawings) that are included in the plans, 5) I have also included, as a separate attachment, Recommended Supplemental Tree Protection Specifications to supplement the tree protection requirements of the Town of Los Gatos. 6) Neighboring trees: whose canopies overhang the project site must receive tree protection in the same manner as existing trees to remain on the project site; for example tree protection fencing and signage. The general contractor shall fence off the dripline of these trees as much as possible in order to avoid damaging branches and compacting the soil beneath the canopy. If pruning is necessary in order to avoid branch breakage, the general contractor shall hire a qualified tree service to perform the minimum necessary construction clearance pruning. 7) I should review all site -based plans for this project. I have reviewed the plan sheets listed on page 9. Additional improvements on plans that were not reviewed or have been revised may cause additional trees to be impacted and/or removed. Plans reviewed by the arborist should be full-size, to -scale and with accurately located tree trunks and canopy driplines relative to proposed improvements. Scale should be 1:20 or 1:10. 8) As a part of the design process, try to keep improvements (and any additional over -excavation or work area beyond the improvement) as far from tree trunks and canopies as possible. 6xDBH' or the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater, should be used as the minimum distance for any soil disturbance to the edge of the trunk. 3xDBH should be considered the absolute minimum distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one side of the trunk only, for root protection. Farther is better, of course. For disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk, then 6xDBH or greater should be used, and farther is also better here. Tree canopies must also be taken into consideration when designing around trees. Don't forget the minimum necessary working margin around improvements as you locate those improvements. Disturbance usually comes much closer to trees than the lines shown on the plans! 9) Construction or landscaping work done underneath the dripline of existing trees should preferably be done by hand, taking care to preserve existing roots in undamaged condition as much as possible and cutting roots cleanly by hand when first encountered, when those roots must be removed. A qualified consulting arborist (the project arborist) should be hired to monitor tree protection and 3 See pages 26 and 27 for an explanation of tree protection root distances. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 6 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Ser c ice shire 1984 supervise all work underneath the dripline of trees. This also applies to trees an neighboring properties whose canopies overhang the work site. 10) Landscaping: a) New landscaping and irrigation can be as much or more damaging to existing trees than any other type of construction. The same tree root protection distances recommended for general construction should also be observed for new landscaping. Within the root protection zone it is usually best to limit landscape changes to a 3 to 4-inch depth of coarse organic mulch such as wood or bark chips or tree trimming chippings spread over the soil surface. The environment around existing trees should be changed very carefully or not at all - please consult with me regarding changes in the landscape around existing trees and/or have me review the landscape and irrigation plans for this project. b) This site and adjacent property contains oaks that are native to the immediate area (coast live oak, Quercus agrifolia). This tree species fares best with no irrigation during the normal dry months of the year. The best treatment of the ground beneath the canopies of native oaks is nothing but their own natural leaf and twig litter mulch. Exceptions to irrigation restriction include during the winter in extended drought periods, as temporary compensation for root loss due to construction, and for newly planted trees during their 2 to 3 year establishment period after installation. Native oak species are often killed due to inappropriate landscaping that is installed around them; mostly commonly landscaping that requires frequent irrigation such as lawns or other high water -use plants, Large drought tolerant trees such as native oaks can become dangerous when exposed to frequent irrigation, especially close to their trunks. California native oaks that are treated in this manner may contract root rot diseases and fall over at the roots; often causing great damage and personal injury I there are targets in their vicinity such as homes, cars and people. It is important to landscape correctly around our native oaks; e.g. summer dry. I have attached a publication entitled Living among the Oaks, to assist in best managing the oaks on the property, as well as the directions to follow in items 'b' and 'c' below. c) Around the native oaks: there shall be no planting or irrigation (including drip irrigation) within a minimum radius of 10 feet from the trunks of the oaks or the inner half of the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater. Farther is better. Within this 10-foot (or greater) radius around the trunk a 3 to 4-inch depth of coarse organic mulch such as wood or bark chips or tree trimming chippings shall be spread over the soil surface. Shredded redwood bark is not allowed. Keep the mulch off the root collar of the trees. Beyond this 10-foot (or greater) protective, mulched area only drought -tolerant, summer -dry plant species, preferably plant species that are native to the immediate area and grow commonly in association with the native oaks, may be planted. Only summer -dry tolerant plants are allowed within the outer half of the dripline of the tree or 20 feet from the trunk, whichever is greater. Such plants may be planted from no larger than 1-gallon cans in holes that are hand -dug manually with a shovel (no P© Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357_ decahepacbell.net. http://www.decak.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 7 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Serocc since 1(14 power equipment such as augers allowed). These plants must be spaced sparsely (e.g. planted no closer than 4 feet apart) and watered with drip irrigation. The planting zone around these plants shall be mulched in the same manner previously described. The drip irrigation for these plants should preferably be abandoned after a 2 to 3 year establishment period. 11) Trees to remain after adjacent trees are removed should be re-evaluated by me or the project arborist after the surrounding trees have been taken out. 12) General Tree Maintenance: a) The root collars and lower trunks of some of the trees were obscured from view by vegetation, excess soil or other covering. Such portions of the tree should be uncovered and the tree re-evaluated by the arborist. b) Do no unnecessary pruning, fertilization or other tree work. Pre -construction pruning should be limited to the absolute minimum required for construction clearance. A qualified tree service should be hired to provide such pruning. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE & USE OF REPORT This survey and report was required by the Town of Los Gatos as a part of the building permit process for this project. The purpose of the report is to identify and describe the existing protected trees on site - - their size, condition and suitability for preservation. The audience for this report is the property owner, developer, project architects and contractors, and Town of Los Gatos authorities concerned with tree preservation and tree removal. The goal of this report is to preserve the existing protected trees on site that are in acceptable condition, are good species for the area and will fit in well with the proposed new use of the site. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahepacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 8 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 PLANS REVIEWED Table 2 PLAN DATE SHEET I REVIEWED I SHOULD REVIEW I NOTES Existing Site Topographic Map including existing tree trunk locations 7/23/15 C1,0 X Proposed Site Layout 7/23/15 A1.01 X Demolition X Construction Staging Grading/Drainage 7/23/15 C2.0 X Storm water Management 7/23/15 C3.0, 3.1 X Underground Utility Site & Building Sections 7/23/15 A3.01, a, b 3.11a,b X Building Exterior Elevations 7/23/15 A3.01, a, b 3.11a,b X Roof 7/23/15 A2.31 a, b x Shadow Study Construction Details that would affect trees (for example building foundations, pavement installation including sub -grade preparation, underground utility installation) _ X Landscape Planting 7/23/15 L1.1 X Conceptual. Should also review Detailed. Irrigation Plan 7/23/15 L1.2 X Preliminary. Should also review Detailed. Landscape & Irrigation Details X PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahGpacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 9 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 METHODOLOGY performed a brief evaluation of the subject trees from the ground on September 18, 2015. Tree characteristics such as form, weight distribution, foliage color and density, wounds and indicators of decay were noted. Surrounding site conditions were also observed, Evaluation procedures were taken from: • American National Standard A-300 (Part 5)-- 2012 for Tree Care Operations - Tree. Shrub & Other Woody Plant Management- Standard Practices (Management of Trees & Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development and Construction). • International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices: • Manacling Trees during Construction. 2008 • Tree Inventories. 2013 The above references serve as industry professional standards for tree evaluation and written findings and recommendations for trees on construction sites prior, during and after site development. Each of the trees was tagged in the field (exceptions noted) with metal number tags that correspond with the tree numbers referenced in this report and on the Tree Map. Note that there are two sets of tags on many of the trees - the tags that were used to number the trees for this report and another set of tags that were placed on the trees prior to our tree survey on September 18, 2015. I measured the trunk diameter of each tree with a diameter tape at 4.5 feet above the ground (DBH), which is also the required trunk diameter measurement height of the Town of Los Gatos. DBH is used calculate tree protection distances and other tree -related factors, Trunk diameter was rounded to the nearest inch. I estimated the tree's height and canopy spread. Tree Condition (structure and vigor) was evaluated and I also recorded additional notes for trees when significant. Tree species and condition considered in combination with the current or (if applicable) proposed use of the site yields the Tree Preservation Suitability rating. The more significant trees (or groups of trees) were photographed with a digital camera. Some of these photos are included in this report, but all photos are available from me by email if requested. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 406-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net_ http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page I 0 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 OBSERVATIONS SITE CONDITIONS The existing site includes three commercial buildings, a large parking lot area and perimeter and interior landscaping. Site topography is mainly level. Landscaping is typical for the area and is irrigated by sprinklers. Landscape irrigation has probably been reduced due to the drought, as many of the moderate and high water requirement species appear drought stressed. Landscape maintenance is of a moderate level. Sun exposure for the trees varies from full to partly shaded, depending upon proximity to existing buildings and to other trees. Many of the overhanging trees on adjacent properties are coast live oaks (a native tree species) which are probably of natural growth, meaning that they were not planted. In the "outback" areas to the south and west of the site these trees are not receiving irrigation, but for the most part they are doing well. There are also a few non-native tree species in the outback area as well, such as coast redwood and olive. These trees were probably not planted and are "volunteers" that grew with the help of birds distributing their seeds. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net_ http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 11 of 39 APPENDIX E3 C•M _FILE TEE T EE Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Seance since 1984 This Table is continued through page 21. Data fields in the Table are explained on pages 21 to 26. * Denotes tree species native to the area within the vicinity of the site. All other tree species are not native to the immediate area. + Denotes tree not tagged. Tree # Species & Common Name Trunk Diam. CONDITION Preservation Suitability Value I Expected Construction Impact Action Reason Notes TREE ROOT PROTECTION DISTANCES Size Vigor Structure x CO a x ell x CO o x CO OTPZ *1 Quercus lobate, valley oak 8,2 40*20 40 40 Fair/Poor $970 Severe Remove Construction 5 5 7 *2 Quercus agrifolia, coast live oak 7 40*25 75 40 Fair 1,040 Severe Remove Construction 5 5 5 3 Olea europaea, European olive (olive) 9,3,2 20*12 70 40 Fair/Poor 1,030 Severe Remove Construction Condition: car wounds to 5 6 6 trunk on neighbor's side. Tree is pruned to look like a narrow hedge. 4 olive 3,6,10 18*15 70 40 Fair 1,680 Severe Remove Construction Condition: tree is pruned 4 8 8 to look like a narrow hedge. 5 Lagerstroemia hybrid, crape myrtle 3*4,5 20*13 85 50 Fair/Good 3,210 Severe Remove Construction 5 6 6 6 crape myrtle 8 (3) 20*16 90 60 Good 1,310 Severe Remove Construction 5 5 5 7 crape myrtle 9 (3) 22*16 85 60 Good 2,140 Severe Remove Construction 5 5 5 8 olive 7,8,9 15*18 80 40 Fair 2,620 Severe Remove .Construction Condition: topped 4 9 9 9 olive 13,9 (3) 15*16 70 40 Fair/Poor 2,580 _ Severe Remove Construction Condition: topped 4 9 13 i PO Sox 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.deeah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 12 of 39 Deborah EI[is, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist .Ver ' ce since 19,N4 Species ONDITION I I Expected Il TREE ROOT PROTECTION DISTANCES Tree & Trunk Structure Preservation Reason Notes OTPZ # Common Name Diam. Size Suitability Value Construction Impact Action i m x o M CD 10 Liquidambar styraciflua, American sweet gum (sweet gum) 15 45*20 85 60 Good 2,140 Severe Remove Construction 8 11 11 Befula pendula, 11 60*30 European white birch (birch) 0 0 Unacceptable 0 Severe Remove Construction/ Overall Condition Condition: tree is dead. 5 6 11 Fungal wood decay conks are emerging from the trunk, including the lower trunk — so remove tree asap for safety. 12 13 sweet gum olive 15 15,18 (3) 40*22 90 16*18 90 70 Good 50 Fair 2,370 Severe 5,400 Severe Remove Remove Construction Construction 4 8 11 Condition: topped but some reparative pruning afterward. 11 17 14 olive 7,9,10 16*16 80 40 Fair/Poor 2,940 Severe Remove Construction Condition: same as previous, also much sunscald on exposed branches. 15 birch 35*15 80 75 Good 640 Severe Remove Construction Condition: remove stake and tie. 16 birch 7 40*12 70 50 Fair 1,080 Severe Remove Construction 5 5 7 17 birch 5 38*15 60 50 Fair/Poor 450 Severe Remove Construction 5 5 5 18 19 birch birch 6 [30*12 50 50 Fair/Poor 6 30*12 50 60 Fair/Poor 900 Severe 990 Severe Remove Construction Remove Construction 5 6 5 6 20 birch 5 30*15 50 60 Fair/Poor 450 Severe Remove Construction Condition: lower trunk hidden in shrub. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah®pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 13 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Serr ice since 1984 Tree # Species & Common Name Trunk Diam. Size ONDITION Preservation Suitability Value Expected Construction Impact Action Reason TREE ROOT PROTECTION DISTANCES a, Structure Notes 3xDBH 6xDBH OTPZ 21 birch 5 40*16 50 50 Fair/Poor 410 Severe Remove Construction 5 5 5 22 olive 15 16*15 60 40 Fair/Poor 1,710 Severe Remove Construction 4 8 8 23 Sequoia sempervirens, coast redwood (redwood) 20,20 50*30 60 60 Fair 9,000 Uncertain Debatable Construction Construction: trunk is 8 15 23 close to property line, and edge of underground garage is 15 feet from property line. This could be acceptable for the tree as long as the actual excavation remains at this distance. Not sure about construction methodology, however. There will also be existing parking lot removal, a new wall and new landscaping up to the property line. Depending upon the footing, the wall may take out the tree. Recommend avoiding any soil disturbance within a minimum of 8 feet from trunk, except for careful removal of existing pavement. Condition: behind fence off property; limited visibility of tree for evaluation. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 14 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 I- Tree # Species & Common Name Trunk Diam. ONDITION ITREE Value Expected Construction Impact Action Reason ROOT PROTECTION DISTANCES Size L co, 5 = 0 b v: Preservation Suitability Notes 3xDBH 6xDBH OTPZ 24 olive 7,8 22*18 70 60 Fair 1,290 Severe Remove Construction onstruction: existing 5 6 6 arking lot removal, wall nd new landscaping to property line — within a ew feet of trunk. ondition: same as previous. 25 olive 6,2 22*15 70 60 Fair 1,170 Moderate/ Severe Remove Construction Construction: same as 5 5 5 previous. Tree not included on plan. Condition: same as previous. Probably a volunteer. Next to 12" dead redwood. *26 coast live oak 24 (3) 35*40 60 60 Fair/Good 6,800 Severe Remove Construction Condition: asphalt paving 6 12 18 on project site, right up to root collar. 27 olive 5,6,6 16*15 70 40 Fair/Poor 1,030 Severe iRemove Construction 5 6 6 *28 coast live oak 13 40*30 85 60 Fair/Good 2,540 Severe Remove Construction Condition: behind fence 3 7 7 and off property, with trunk growing through fence. 29 Magnolia grandiflora, Southern magnolia 9 18*20 60 60 Fair 990 Severe Remove Construction Condition: looks drought 5 5 9 stressed. 30 Southern magnolia 7 16*20 50 50 Fair/Poor 900 Severe Remove Construction Condition: same as 5 5 7 above. but worse. PO Sox 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahepacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 15 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Tree # Species I & Common Name Trunk Diam. CONDITION Preservation Suitability Value Expected Construction Impact _ Action Reason TREE ROOT PROTECTION DISTANCES Size L co Structure Notes 3xDBH 0 1.0 H O 31 Mefrosideros excelsa, New Zealand Christmas tree 7,8 20*15 60 50 Fair 2,810 Severe Remove Construction 5 6 9 32 olive 6,7,7,10 20*20 70 70 Fair/Good 4,880 Severe Remove Construction 5 10 10 33 olive 11(3) 22*20 80 70 Fair/Good 1,510 Severe Remove Construction 5 5 5 34 olive 12 (4) 22*20 80 75 Good 1,960 Severe Remove Construction 5 6 6 35 Southern magnolia 11 (4) 20*20 50 60 Fair/Poor 1,230 Severe Remove Construction 5 5 11 36 crape myrtle 7(4) 20*22 90 70 Good 1,440 Severe Remove Construction 5 5 5 37 crape myrtle 7(4) 18*18 80 70 Good _ 1,350 Severe Remove Construction 5 5 5 38 Fraxinus angusfifolia 'Raywood', Raywood ash 14 35*25 50 40 Poor 920 Severe Remove Construction Condition: about a quarter 4 7 11 of the tree's branches are dead. 39 sweet gum 13 35*27 85 70 Fair/Good 1,580 Severe Remove Construction Condition: lower trunk 3 7 10 obscured from view by groundcover. Root collar about 6 inches from sidewalk and slight slab lifting 40 sweet gum 11 30*22 80 60 Fair 1,030 Severe Remove Construction .Condition: same as 5 6 8 previous. 41 olive 6,6,7,9 18*20 85 50 Fair 3,680 Severe Remove Construction Condition: topped and 5 10 10 also pruned in an odd manner for light pole clearance. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357, decah@pacbell.net. http://www_decah.com. Arborist RReport for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 16 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Tree # Species & Common Name Trunk Diam. Size Vigor z v_ Structure 0 z Preservation Suitability Value Expected Construction Impact Action Reason Notes TREE ROOT PROTECTION DISTANCES s mo el x co 0 to N 0 42 olive 14 18*18 90 60 Fair/Good 2,240 Severe Remove Construction 4 7 7 43 olive 8,8,10 25*20 85 60 Fair 3,550 Severe Remove Construction 4 9 9 44 Schinus terebinthefollus, Brazilian pepper tree 7,8,9,10 22*25 85 60 Good 6,800 Severe Remove Construction 6 11 17 45 olive 14,9@3 (2) 16*15 70 40 Fair/Poor 2,610 Severe Remove Construction 5 9 9 46 olive 14 (3) 18*18 70 60 Fair 2,030 Severe Remove Construction 3 7 7 r*47+ coast live oak 22 50*35 70 60 Good 7,400 Uncertain Debatable Construction Construction: edge of 6 11 17 trunk is 2 feet from property line edge of underground garage is 15 feet from property line. This could be acceptable for the tree as long as the actual excavation remains at this distance. Not sure about construction methodology, however. There will also be existing parking lot removal, a new wall and new landscaping up to the property line. Depending upon the footing, the wall may take out the tree. Recommend avoiding any soil PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 17 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist ,C'erc icc since 1 9,N.4 Species FONDITIONI Expected TREE ROOT PROTECTION DISTANCES Tree # & Common Name Trunk Diam, Size °ay 3 m 3 v Preservation Suitability Value Construction Impact Action Reason Notes 3xDBH = m toto OTPZ disturbance within a minimum of 6 feet from trunk, except for careful removal of existing pavement. Condition: behind fence off property; limited visibility of tree for evaluation. *48 coast live oak 6 40*16 50 40 Fair/Poor 810 Severe Remove Construction Construction: likely too close to wall. Condition: shaded and suppressed. Growing through fence. *49 *50+ coast live oak coast live oak 8,11 26 (4) 30*35 40*58 70 80 60 70 Fair/Good Good 3,160 11,700 Severe Moderate Remove Save Construction Construction: likely too close to wall. Condition: growing through fence. Lower trunk partially obscured from view. Asphalt up to root collar. Construction: edge of trunk is 8 feet from property line, which new landscaping is going right up to. Note proposed focal point shade tree near this tree — there are already many large 13 19 PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pecbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 18 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Species ONDITION Expected TREE ROOT PROTECTION DISTANCES Tree & Trunk Vigor Structure Preservation 3xDBH I OTPZ I # Common Name Diam. Size Suitability Value Construction Impact Action Reason Notes = m x m shading trees in the outback area between the property and Saratoga Los Gatos Rd. / Highway 17. Condition: behind fence off property; limited visibility of tree for evaluation. Foliage and branches of tree are about 18 feet above the ground, 15 feet from fence. *51+ coast live oak 24 40*50 70 70 Fair 9,400 Low/ Moderate Save Construction: trunk is 15 feet from property line. Condition: behind fence off property; limited visibility of tree for evaluation. 12 18 52 Pinus radiata, Monterey pine 28 80*50 60 Fair/Poor 2,220 Severe Remove Construction/ Overall Condition 14 2 53 Monterey pine 17 70*25 40 40 Poor 540 Severe 54 Monterey pine 23 70*30 50 50 Poor 1,290 Severe Remove Construction/Overall Condition Remove Construction/Overall Condition 12 23 *55+ coast live oak 20*12 50 40 Fair/Poor 580 Uncertain Debatable Construction, Overall Condition Construction: 4 feet from property line, 8 feet from edge of underground garage. PO Sox 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070, 40B-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www,decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 19 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Semite since 1984 Tree # Species & Common Name Trunk Diam. ONDITION Preservation Suitability Value Expected Construction Action Reason TREE ROOT PROTECTION DISTANCES Size toa)Impact 5 Structure Notes 3xDBH x d to OTPZ Condition: shaded and suppressed. Behind fence off property; limited visibility of tree for evaluation. *56 coast live oak 8 25*20 80 40 Fair 450 Uncertain Debatable Construction, Structure Construction: 1 foot from 5 5 5 property line, 20 feet from edge of underground garage. Condition: lower trunk grows through fence and leans outward toward Saratoga/Los Gatos Road. *57 coast live oak 14 40*20 80 60 Good 2,830 Moderate/ Severe Debatable Construction Construction: 12-14 feet 4 7 7 from building and planter. 30 feet from underground garage. Canopy of tree will probably be impacted the most. Erect story posts to assess. Condition: lower trunk presses against fence and partially obscured from view. 58 redwood 16,17 50*22 40 50 Poor 3,660 Severe Remove Overall Condition, Construction Construction: 6 feet from 6 13 19 planter, 13 feet from building. Erect story posts to assess effect on PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pccbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 20 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 [ Tree # I Species & Common Name Trunk Diam. Size Vigor 0 Structure Q z Preservation Suitability Value Expected Construction Impact Action Reason 1TREEROOT4 Notes PROTECTION DISTANCES 3xDBH x 00 0 x w OTPZ canopy. Condition: looks drought stressed. 59 redwood 23,24,39 70*35 60 60 Fair 25,300 Moderate/ Severe Debatable Construction Construction: 17 feet from 16 32 63 building, 51 feet from underground parking garage. Erect story posts to see effect of building on canopy. Soil disturbance should not come closer than 16 feet from trunk, except for careful removal of existing building. 60 Schinus molle, California pepper tree 20 35*25 80 60 Fair/Good 3,490 Severe Remove Landscape Improvement 5 10 25 EXPLANATION OF TREE TABLE DATA COLUMNS: 1) Tree Number {the field tag number of the existing tree}. Each existing tree in the field is tagged with a 1.25 inch round aluminum number tag that corresponds to its tree number referenced in the arborist report, Tree Map, Tree Protection Specifications and any other project plans where existing trees must be shown and referenced. 2) Tree Name and Type: Species: The Genus and species of each tree. This is the unique scientific name of the plant, for example Quercus agrifolia where Quercus is the Genus and agrifolia is the species. The scientific names of plants can be changed from time to time, but those used in this report are from the most current PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 21 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book (2012) Sunset Publishing Corporation. The scientific name is presented at its first occurrence in the Tree Table, along with the regional common name. After that only the common name is used. 3) Trunk DBH. Tree trunk diameter in inches "at breast height" (measured at 4.5 feet above ground level). This is the forestry and arboricultural standard measurement height that is also used in many tree -related calculations. It is also the trunk diameter measurement height required by the Town of Los Gatos. For multi -trunk trees, trunk diameter is measured for the largest trunk and estimated for all smaller trunks. Trunk diameter is measured when possible, and estimated when it is not possible or safe to physically measure. A number in parentheses (e.g. 3) after the trunk diameter(s) indicates that it was not possible to measure the trunk at 4.5 feet (due to tree architecture) and so the diameter was measured at this alternate height (in feet), which reflects a more realistic trunk diameter for the tree. 4) Size: tree size is listed as height x width in feet, estimated and approximate and intended for comparison purposes. 5) Condition Ratings: Trees are rated for their condition on a scale of zero to 100 with zero being a dead tree and 100 being a perfect tree (which is rare — like a supermodel in human terms). A 60 is "average" (not great but not terrible either). There are two components to tree condition — vigor and structure, and each component is rated separately. Averaging the two components is not useful because a very low rating for either one could be a valid reason to remove a tree from a site -- even if the other component has a high rating. Numerically speaking for each separate component: 100 is equivalent to Excellent (an 'A' academic grade), 80 is Good (B), 60 is Fair (C), 40 is Poor (D), 20 is Unacceptable (F) and 0 is Dead. • Relative to the scope of work for this report, tree Condition has been rated but not explained in detail and recommendations for the management of tree condition have not been included. The tree owner may contact Deborah Ellis for additional information on tree condition and specific recommendations for the general care of individual trees relative to their condition. • The Condition of the tree is considered relative to the tree species and present or future intended use of the site to provide an opinion on the tree's Preservation Suitability Rating (i.e. "Is this tree worth keeping on this site, in this location, as explained in Table 4 on the next page. This is based upon the scenario that the tree is given enough above and below -ground space to survive and live a long life on the site. Ratings such as "Fair/Good" and "Fair/Poor" are intermediate in nature. The Preservation Suitability rating is not always the same as the Condition Rating because (for example) some trees with poor condition or structure can be significantly improved with just a small amount of work — and it would be worthwhile to keep the tree if this were done. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 22 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1')8d Table 4 Preservation Suitability Rating Exalanation Excellent Such trees are rare but they have unusually good health and structure and provide multiple functional and aesthetic benefits to the environment and the users of the site. These are great trees with a minimum rating of "Good" for both vigor and structure. Equivalent to academic grade 'A'. Good These trees may have some minor to moderate structural or condition flaws that can be improved with treatment. They are not perfect but they are in relatively good condition and provide at least one significant functional or aesthetic benefit to the environment and the users of the site. These are better than average trees equivalent to academic grade `B'. Fair These trees have moderate or greater health and/or structural defects that it may or may not be possible to improve with treatment. These are "average" trees — not great but not so terrible that they absolutely should be removed. The majority of trees on most sites tend to fall into this category. These trees will require more intensive management and monitoring, and may also have shorter life spans than trees in the "Good" category. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the degree of proposed site changes. Equivalent to academic grade " C, Poor These trees have significant structural defects or poor health that cannot be reasonably improved with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The tree species themselves may have characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or may be unsuitable for high use areas, l do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Equivalent to academic grade 'ID'. None These trees are dead and/or are not suitable for retention in their location due to risk or other issues. In certain settings however, (such as wilderness areas, dead trees are beneficial as food and shelter for certain animals and plants including decomposers. Equivalent to academic grade 'F'. 6) Value: Tree monetary appraisal is based upon: (1) Cost of Installation plus (2) its increase in value over a container -size tree if a larger size tree being appraised. This value is then adjusted according to: (a) Species (according to regional published species ratings), (b) Condition of the tree, and (c) Location of the tree (an average of the sub -categories of Site, Contribution and Placement). The methodology and calculations for the Trunk Formula Method are taken from two industry standard texts — The Guide for Plant Appraisal 9th edition, 2000, edited by the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers and published by the International Society of Arboriculture, and the Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004, published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. The cross -sectional trunk diameter price presented in this text has been adjusted slightly downward to match the current actual average wholesale cost of a 24-inch box nursery tree in this area. Note that the values produced for this report PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070, 408-725-1357. decahl pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way, September 26, 2015 Page 23 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist ,5ervacc slice 19i 4 are meant for reference only and may not reflect the true value of the tree that could be calculated by a thorough and more detailed analysis of each individual tree. a) Caveats regarding tree values: The values in this report have not been subjected to a "reasonableness test" which compares the value of trees and landscaping to the total value of the property. The values in the report were calculated quickly and are intended to be approximate and for reference only. Research on tree and landscape values has shown that landscaping can contribute up to 20% of the total property value. In some cases however, tree appraisals have produced tree values that exceed the value of the entire property. Performing a reasonableness test screens for this error. For certain trees in this report I have decreased or increased tree values when I felt that the calculated values were too high or too low. b) The Trunk Formula Method is used for trees that are too large for practical replacement with a similar size nursery container -grown tree. This method applies to trees with trunk diameters that are larger than 8-inches, measured at 12 inches above the ground. For the purpose of this report, all trees with trunk diameters of 8 inches or greater measured at DBH (4.5 feet above the ground) are appraised by this method. c) The Replacement Cost Method is used for smaller trees with trunk diameters up to 4-inches in diameter measured at 12 inches above the ground. This is generally equivalent to a 48-inch box -size tree. The replacement cost for such a tree shall be the average wholesale cost of the tree multiplied by two to include transportation to the site, planting and other costs. This price is then adjusted (usually downward) based upon the Condition ratings percentages for the appraised tree. For the purpose of this report, all trees with trunk diameters of 7 inches or less measured at DBH (4.5 feet above the ground) are appraised by this method. The following cost basis is used (based upon the average of wholesale tree prices from Boething Treeland Nursery, Portola Valley and Valley Crest Tree Nursery, Sunol, 2/2/2015): Trunk DBH Replacement tree size Replacement Tree Wholesale Cost x 2 (for installation, etc.) <1" to 1" 15 gallon $47,50 x 2 = $95 2-3" 24" box $162.50 x 2 = $325 4-5" 36" box $412.50 x 2 = $825 6-7" 48" box $900 x 2 = $1800 d) Tree values for tree protection bonds: Prior to commencing work, the tree -regulating authority may require that the contractor furnish a bond equal to some portion of the total appraised value of the trees on the site based upon the values presented in the Arborist Report. Bond money will be returned to the contractor upon the completion of the project with deductions or additional fines imposed based upon tree protection compliance and the final condition of the trees. Tree values are often used to establish a benchmark amount to fine the contractor if non- compliance with the Tree Protection Specifications or other negligence causes a subject tree to be removed or unnecessarily damaged. The full value amount should be charged to the contractor if a tree is damaged to the degree that it must be removed. A portion of the value of the tree PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahCpacbell,net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist keport for 401-409 Alberta Way. September 26, 2015 Page 24 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Scruice since 1984 plus any necessary remediation costs, as determined by the tree owner, should be charged to the contractor if the tree is damaged but does not have to be removed. 7) Action (Disposition): a) Save: it should be no problem save this tree utilizing standard tree protection measures. b) Remove: this recommendation is based upon tree condition, preservation suitability, expected impact of construction, poor species for the site or any combination of these factors. c) Debatable: there is a problem with potentially retaining this tree. Find out why in the Reason and Notes columns of the Complete Tree Table. Examples are: • The tree is shown to be saved (and may be a desirable tree to save) but proposed construction is too close or is uncertain and may cause too much damage to retain the tree. Design changes may be recommended to reduce damage to the tree so that it can be saved. • Further evaluation of the tree is necessary (e.g. the tree requires further, more detailed evaluation that is beyond the scope of this tree survey and report. Examples are advanced internal decay detection and quantification with resistance drilling or tomography, a "pull test" to assess tree stability from the roots, or tissue samples sent to a plant pathology laboratory for disease diagnosis. • Condition: the tree is in "so-so" or lesser condition and an argument could be made to either save or remove the tree as it stands now. In some cases the owner will make the decision to save or remove the tree based upon the information provided in this report as well as the owner's own preferences. • Species: the tree may be a poor species for the area or the intended use of the developed site. • Uncertain construction impact • Other (as explained for the individual tree) 8) Reason (for tree removal or to explain why a tree is listed as "Debatable" or "Uncertain"). Multiple reasons may be provided, with the most significant reason listed first. Reasons can include but are not limited to: • Construction (excessive construction impact is unavoidable and it is not worthwhile to try and save the tree) • Condition (e.g. poor tree condition : either vigor, structure or both) • Landscaping (the tree is being removed because it does not fit in with or conflicts with proposed new landscaping) • Owner's Decision (for some reason the owner has decided to remove this tree) • Species (the tree is a poor species for the use of the site) • Risk (the tree presents moderate to excessive risk to people or property that cannot be sufficiently mitigated) 9) Notes: This may include any other information that would be helpful to the client and their architects and contractors within the scope of work for this report, such as a more detailed explanation of tree condition or expected construction impact. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 40S-725-1357. decah@pacbell,net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 25 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist ,Service since 1984 10) Tree Protection Distances: a) Root Protection: see below and page 27 for a detailed explanation. b) Canopy Protection: Additional space beyond root zone protection distances may be necessary for canopy protection. c) I have increased a few of the calculated tree protection distances for certain individual trees based upon my professional judgment and relative to site constraints. For example the minimum root protection distance I will list for any tree is 5 feet. TREE ROOT PROTECTION DISTANCES No one can estimate and predict with absolute certainty how far a soil disturbance such as an excavation must be from the edge of the trunk of an individual tree to effect tree stability or health at a low, moderate or severe degree -- there are simply too many variable involved that we cannot see or anticipate. 3xDBH however, is a reasonable "rule of thumb" minimum distance (in feet) any soil disturbance should be from the edge of the trunk on one side of the trunk. This is supported by several separate research studies including (Smiley, Friedrich, & Hendrickson 2002, Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories). DBH is trunk "diameter at breast height" (4.5 feet above the ground). This distance is often used during the design and planning phases of a construction project in order to estimate root damage to a tree due to the proposed construction. It tends to correlate reasonably well with the zone of rapid taper, which is the area in which the large buttress roots (main support roots close to the trunk) rapidly decrease in diameter with increasing distance from the trunk. For example, using the 3X bBH guideline an excavation should be no closer than 4.5 feet from the trunk of an 18-inch DBH tree, For trees with multiple trunks, an adjusted DBH is often calculated using 100% of the largest trunk plus 50% of the remaining smaller trunks. Such distances are guidelines only, and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies, significant leans, decay, structural problems, etc. I will generally not recommend a root protection distance of less than 5 feet for any tree, even very small trees. It is also important to understand that in actual field conditions we often find that much less root damage occurs than was anticipated by the guidelines. 3xb8H may be more of an aid in preserving tree stability and not necessarily Tong -term tree health. 6 to 18 X D8H is the minimum distance which is recommended in the ANSI (American National Standard) A300 (Part 5)-2012 Management of Trees c. Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, ci Construction, and also in the companion publication from the International Society of Arboriculture, Best Management Practices, Managing Trees During Construction, 2008. When the 6 to 18 x DBH distance cannot be met, "appropriate mitigation or determination that the work will not impact tree health and stability shall be performed", according to the ANSI Standard. ANSI A300 (Part 8) - 2013 Root Management, states: "When roots are damaged within 6 times the trunk diameter (DBH) mitigation shall be recommended." For practical purposes I use the 6 x bBH distance as the minimal distance acceptable (in most circumstances) in order to maintain good tree health and structural stability. The 6 x DBH distance or greater should definitely be used when there are sail disturbances on more than one side of the trunk. P© Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 26 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service sing' 1984 OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone): OTPZ rs the distance in feet from the trunk of the tree, all around the tree, that construction or other disturbance should not encroach within. If this zone is respected, then chances of the tree surviving construction disturbance are very good, This method takes into account tree age and the particular species tolerance to root disturbance. Although there are no scientifically based methods to determine the minimum distance for construction (for example, root severance) from trees to assure their survival and stability, there are some guidelines that are often used in the arboricultural industry. The most current guideline comes from the text, Trees d Development, Matheny et al., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. Due to the crowded, constrained nature of many building sites it is often not be possible to maintain the OPTZ distance recommended for many of the trees -- therefore I have also listed alternate distances of 3 and 6X bBH. LOS GATOS TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS LOS GATOS TOWN CODE Chapter 29 — ZONING REGULATIONS Article h — IN GENERAL Division 2. TREE PROTECTION Sec. 29.10.1005. Protection of trees during construction. (a) Protective tree fencing shall specify the following: (1) Size and materials. Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base. (2) Area type to be fenced. Type l: Enclosure with chain Zink fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when specified by a certified or consulting arborist. Type II: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outer branches_ Type ID: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. (3) Duration of Type I, II, III fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demolition; grading or construction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. (4) Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x 11-inch sign stating: 'Warning —Tree Protection Zone -this fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025". PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way, September 26, 2015 Page 27 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist .ier • ce since 1984 (b) Ail persons, shall comply with the following precautions: (1) Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles within the TPZ. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction. (2) Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree unless approved by the Director. (3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree. (4) Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree. (5) Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible. (6) Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The project arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all site visits. (7) The Director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered. (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1010. Pruning and maintenance. All pruning shall be in accordance with the current version of the International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices —Tree Pruning and ANSI A300-Part 1 Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management —Standard Practices, (Pruning) and any special conditions as determined by the Director. For developrnents, which require a tree preservation report, a certified or consulting arborist shall be in reasonable charge of all activities involving protected trees, including pruning, cabling and any other work if specified. (1) Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the vicinity of a protected tree shall obtain permission from the Director before performing any work, including pruning, which may cause injury to a protected tree. (e.g. cable TV/fiber optic trenching; gas, water, sewer trench, etc.). (2) Pruning for clearance of utility lines and energized conductors shall be performed in compliance with the current version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 1)-Pruning, Section 5.9 Utility Pruning. Using spikes or gaffs when pruning, except where no other alternative is available, is prohibited. (3) No person shall prune, trim, cut off, or perform any work, on a single occasion or cumulatively, over a three-year period, affecting twenty-five percent or more of the crown of any protected tree without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this division except for PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357, decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 28 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist .Serpice since 1984 pollarding of fruitless mulberry trees (Mores alba) or other species approved by the Town Arborist. Applications for a pruning permit shall include photographs indicating where pruning is proposed. (4) No person shall remove any Heritage tree or large protected tree branch or root through pruning or other method greater than four (4) inches in diameter (12.5" in circumference) without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this division. (Ord. No, 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1015. No limitation of authority. Nothing in this division limits or modifies the existing authority of the Town under Division 29 of Title 29 (Zoning Regulations), Title 26 (Public Trees) or the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines to require trees and other plants to be identified, retained, protected, and/or planted as conditions of the approval of development. In the event of conflict between provisions of this division and conditions of any permit or other approval granted pursuant to Chapter 29 or Chapter 26 of the Town Code or the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The more protective requirements shall prevail. (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1020. Responsibility for enforcement. All officers and employees of the Town shall report violations of this division to the Director of Community Development. Whenever an Enforcement Officer as defined in Section 1.30.015 of the Town Code determines that a violation of this code has occurred, the Enforcement Officer shall have the authority to issue an administrative citation pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.30.020 of the Town Code Whenever an Enforcement Officer charged with the enforcement of this Code determines that a violation of that provision has occurred, the Enforcement Officer shall have the authority to issue an administrative citation to any person responsible for the violation. (Ord. No. 2114, §§ 1,11 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1025. Enforcement —Remedies for violation. In addition to all other remedies set forth in this code or otherwise provided by law, the following remedies shall be available to the Town for violation of this division: (1) Tree removals in absence of or in anticipation of development. If a violation occurs in the absence of or prior to proposed development, then discretionary applications and/or building permit applications will not be accepted or processed by the Town until the violation has been r PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahC pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 29 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist .Service since 1984 remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director. Mitigation measures as determined by the Director may be imposed as a condition of any subsequent application approval or permit for development on the subject property. A mitigation plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of each hillside tree that was removed illegally with a new tree(s) in the same location(s) as those illegally removed tree(s). The replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that required in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29.10.0985 of this division. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation, the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with the Town. For those trees on public property. replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works. (2) Pending development applications. Incomplete applications will not be processed further until the violation has been remedied. If an application has been deemed complete, it may be denied by the Director or forwarded to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial at the Director's discretion. Mitigation measures as determined by the director may be imposed as a condition of approval. A mitigation plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of each hillside tree that was removed illegally with a new tree(s) in the same location(s) as those illegally removed tree(s). The replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that required in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29.10.0985 of this division. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation, the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with the Town. For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works. (3) Projects under construction. a. If a violation occurs during construction, the Town may issue a stop work order suspending and prohibiting further activity on the property pursuant to the grading, demolition, and/or building permit(s) (including construction, inspection, and issuance of certificates of occupancy) until a mitigation plan has been filed with and approved by the Director, agreed to in writing by the property owner(s) or the applicant(s) or both, and either implemented or guaranteed by the posting of adequate security in the discretion of the Director. A mitigation plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of each hillside tree that was removed illegally with a new tree(s) in the same location(s) as those illegally removed tree(s). The replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that required in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29.10.0985 of this division. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation, the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with the Town. For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works. b. The violation of any provisions in this division during the conduct by any person of a tree removal, landscaping, construction or other business in the Town shall constitute grounds for revocation of any business license issued to such person. (4) Civil penalties. Notwithstanding section 29.20.950 relating to criminal penalty, any person found to have violated section 29.10.0965 shall be liable to pay the Town a civil penalty as prescribed in subsections a, through d. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decoh@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 30 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS (5) (6) Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist 5�•r r icc since P)84 a. As part of a civil action brought by the Town, a court may assess against any person who commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this division a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars per violation. b. Where the violation has resulted in removal of a protected tree, the civil penalty shall be in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars per tree unlawfully removed, or the replacement value of each such tree, whichever amount is higher. Such amount shall be payable to the Town and deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund. Replacement value for the purposes of this section shall be determined utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, as prepared by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers and the Species and Group Classification Guide published by the Western Chapter of the international Society of Arboriculture. c. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation, the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five year written maintenance agreement with the Town. d. The cost of enforcing this division, which shall include all costs, staff time, and attorneys' fees. Injunctive relief. A civil action may be commenced to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such violation. Costs. In any civil action brought pursuant to this division in which the Town prevails, the court shall award to the Town all costs of investigation and preparation for trial, the costs of trial, reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative costs incurred in prosecuting the action, and reasonable attorney fees. (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1030. Fees. The fee, as adopted by Town Resolution, prescribed therefore in the municipal fee schedule shall accompany the removal or pruning permit application submitted to the Town for review and evaluation pursuant to this division. (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1035. Severability. If any provision of this division or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this division which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this division are declared to be severable. (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03) PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahepacbell.net. http://www.decah.com Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 31 of 3Q Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist .Service sing 1984 Sec, 29.10.1040. Notices. All notices required under this division shall conform to noticing provisions of the applicable Town Code. Sec. 29.10.1045. Appeals. Any interested person may appeal a decision of the director pursuant to this division in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 29.20.260 of the Town Code. All appeals shall comply with the public noticing provisions of section 29.20.450 of the Town Code. (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03) TREE PHOTOS Northeast corner of the site looking east. Coast live oaks and olives #1-4 are labeled - these are either borderline trees or are located on adjacent property to the north. Interior of the site, 409 building with European white birch trees #1-21. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decoh.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 32 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Upper photo: ®Ilav a #27 in the parking lot, and coast 11nve cpd.L'gs #28, 47 amid 49 (on adjacent property but overhanging the site. This is near the southwest corner of the property. Lower photo: front (east) perimeter of the property on Alberto Way. Sweet eaaans # 12, 39 anal 40 ona .? olives #13 and 14 are labeled. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah®pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way_ September 26, 2015 Page 33 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Left photo: Monterey pines #52~54onthe south side ofbuilding 4O1.These pines are not in good condition and they will be removed osapart of development. Right photo: the southeast corner of the property with Alberto Way to the left and Suru+ugu'Loy Gatos Road in the background. Trip|a'+runkredwo«xd #59 is visible along with California pepper#60. Ifmay bapossible tosave the redwood, but the pepper will be removed. POBox 8714.Saratoga, CA 95070 408-725-1357 ducch@puc6cU.net h+tp://www,duooh.00nz Ar6wriat Report for 4O1-4O9Alberto Way. September 26'2O15 Page 34of39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist .S'crc'icc since 1984 ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS 1. Tree locations were provided by Kier & Wright civil engineers and are shown on the Tree Map on page 1 of this report. The tree map is a reduced partial copy of the Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Utility plan that I was given. Tree locations are assumed to be accurate but should be verified in the field. 2. A Level 2 Basic Evaluation of the subject trees described in this report was performed on August 5, 2015 for the purpose of this report. This is a brief visual evaluation of the tree from the ground, without climbing into the tree or performing detailed tests such as extensive digging, boring or removing samples. The tree is viewed by walking all around it, unless this is not possible. This type of evaluation is an initial screening of the tree after which the evaluator may recommend that additional, more detailed examination(s) be performed if deemed necessary. An assessment of tree risk was not performed during the evaluation. 3. Trees on neighboring properties were not evaluated in detail and/or from all sides. 4. Some trees had their root collars and or lower trunks covered with soil, vegetation or debris and were obstructed from view when I conducted my tree evaluation. If these trees may remain, the obstructions should be removed and I should re-examine these previously covered areas. 5. I did the best I could at estimating construction impacts to trees based upon the plans, but this is difficult to accomplish with certainty at a scale of 1:20. We do not have knowledge about the construction methods that will be used on this project and how the site will be staged for construction - these factors can increase or decrease the effect of construction on trees. How heavy equipment will move on the site is another factor we are unaware of - even though trees may not be located close to improvements, they may be located within equipment travel or staging areas. It is possible therefore, that more trees will need to be removed than are presently listed for removal in this report. On the other hand I may have overestimated construction impact in some cases - so that some trees that are listed for removal may not end up having to be removed after all. 6. Any information and descriptions provided to me for the purpose of my investigation in this case and the preparation of this report are assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. I assume no responsibility for legal matters in character nor do I render any opinion as to the quality of any title. 7. The information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection. 8. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 9. Possession of this report, or any copy thereof, does not imply right of publication for use for any purpose by any person other than to whom this report is addressed without my written consent beforehand. 10. This report and the ratings or values represented herein represent my opinion. My fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value or upon any finding or recommendation reported. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah®pacbell.net. http://www.decah,com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 35 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 11, This report has been prepared in conformity with generally acceptable appraisal/diagnostic/reporting methods and procedures and is consistent with practices recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture and the American Society of Consulting Arborists. 12. My evaluation of the trees that are the subject of this report is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. 13. I take no responsibility for any defects in any tree's structure. No tree described in this report has been climbed and examined from above the ground, and as such, structural defects that could only have been discovered have not been reported, unless otherwise stated. Structural defects may also be hidden within a tree, in any portion of a tree. Likewise, root collar excavations and evaluations have not been performed unless otherwise stated. 14. The measures noted within this report are designed to assist in the protection and preservation of the trees mentioned herein, should some or all of those trees remain, and to help in their short and long term health and longevity. This is not however; a guarantee that any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline, fail, or die, for whatever reason. Because a significant portion of a tree's roots are usually far beyond its dripline, even trees that are well protected during construction often decline, fail or die. Because there may be hidden defects within the root system, trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that trees with no obvious defects can be subject to failure without warning. The current state of arboricultural science does not guarantee the accurate detection and prediction of tree defects and the risks associated with trees. There will always be some level of risk associated with trees, particularly large trees. It is impossible to guarantee the safety of any tree. Trees are unpredictable. I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that this report was prepared in good faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again. Please call me if you have questions or if l can be of further assistance. Wt.„ Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305 I.S.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE-457B I.S.A. Tree Risk Assessment Qualified PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. l'ittp://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 36 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Sertiice since 1984 ENCLOSURES: • Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions (to be included in the final project plan set) • Recommended Supplemental Tree Protection Specifications. D. Ellis, September 2, 2015, • Los Gatos Tree Protection Sign template (to be placed on tree protection fencing) • Living among the Oaks - a Management Guide for Landowners. Johnson. University of California Cooperative Extension, Natural Resources Program. February 2011 Revision. REFERENCES: • American National Standard A300 (Part 51-2012 for Tree Care Operations - Tree, Shrub & Other Woody, Plant Management - Standard Practices: o (Part 5) - 2012 -- Management of Trees & Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, & Construction. o (Part 8) - 2013. Root Management. o (Part 9) - 2011. Tree Risk Assessment. Tree Structure Assessment. • Best Management Practice, International Society of Arboriculture: o Managina Trees during Construction. 2008 o Tree Inventories. 2013. • The Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition, 2000, edited by the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers and published by the International Society of Arboriculture. • Species Classification & Group Assignment. Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. 2004. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decab.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 37 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist t'c rr ire since 1984 GLOSSA S IYl 1. Boundary Line Tree: a tree who's trunk (where the trunk is attached to the ground) straddles the property line between two or more properties. Such a tree is owned jointly by those properties on a percentage basis, depending upon the percentage of the trunk that is located on each property. Permission of co -owners is generally required for removal of the tree, and often pruning or other tree work or actions that affect the tree. 2. Conk: the fruiting body (reproductive structure) of a wood decay fungus, from which spores are released. It usually assumes a "shelf -like" orientation when growing from the side of a trunk or branch. On top of roots, conks often assume a flat or "tabletop" shape. Conks are often a sign that extensive decay has already occurred within the wood. 3- Dripfine; the area under the total branch spread of the tree, all around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 times the radius of the dripline, a great concentration of active roots is often in the soil directly beneath this area. The dripline is often used as an arbitrary "tree protection zone". 4. Project Arborist. The arborist who is appointed to be in charge of arborist services for the project. That arborist shall also be a qualified consulting arborist (either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board -Certified Master Arborist or an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist) that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work required. For most construction projects that work will include inspection and documentation of tree protection fencing and other tree protection procedures, and being available to assist with tree -related issues that come up during the project. 5 Qualified Consulting Arborist: must be either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board -Certified Master Arborist or an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work required. 6. Qualified Tree Service: A tree service with a supervising arborist who has the minimum certification level of ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) Certified Arborist for at least 5 years, in a supervisory position on the job site during execution of the tree work. The tree service shall have a State of California Contractor's license for Tree Service (C61-D49) and provide proof of Workman's Compensation and General Liability Insurance. The person(s) performing the tree work must understand and adhere to the most current of the following arboricultural industry tree care standards • Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning. International Society of Arboriculture, PO Box 3129, Champaign, IL 61826-3129. 217-355- 9411 • ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. Ibid. (Covers tree care methodology). • ANSI Z133.1 Safety Requirements for Arboricultural Operations. Ibid. (Covers safety). 7. Root collar & root collar excavation and examination: The root collar (junction between trunk and roots) is critical to whole -tree health and stability. A root collar excavation carefully uncovers this area (with hand digging tools, water or pressurized air). The area is then examined to assess its health and structural stability. Buttress roots may be traced outward from the trunk several feet. Decay assessment of the large roots close to the trunk (buttress roots) involves additional testing such as drilling to extract interior wood with a regular drill, or the use of a resistance - recording drill to check for changes in wood density within the root; as would be caused by decay or cavities. It is important to note that root decay often begins on the underside of roots, which is not detectable in a root collar excavation unless the entire circumference of the root is PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahepocbell.net http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 38 of 39 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist 14 Service since 1984 excavated and visible. Drill tests may detect such hidden decay. Note that it is not possible to uncover and evaluate the entire portion of the root system that is responsible for whole -tree stability. Decayed roots that are inaccessible (e.g. underneath the trunk) can be degraded to the extent that the whole tree may fail even though uncovered and examined roots in accessible locations appear to be sound. Root rot disease is caused by wet, poorly aerated soil conditions. Degradation of roots (root rot) and sometimes the lower trunk (crown rot) ensues on weakened, susceptible plant species not adapted to such a soil environment. Opportunistic plant root pathogens (such as watermold fungi) are often the secondary cause of the problem_ Root rot is a particular problem among drought tolerant plants that are not adapted to frequent irrigation during our normally rain -free months, such as many of our California native plants. The problem is often worsened in fine - textured heavy clay soils that retain water more than do the coarser, fast -draining soils such as occur in the natural environment of many of our native plants. 9. Summer Dry: Our native oak species are adapted to our "summer dry" climate. When the soil in their root system is kept moist during our normally dry months, these oaks are predisposed to attack by fungal root rot pathogens that are usually present in our soils. Therefore it is important to keep irrigation as far from the tree trunk (preferably beyond the mature dripline) as possible. The best landscape treatment underneath native oaks is non -compacted soil covered with a 3 to 4-inch depth of oak wood, leaf and twig litter (the tree's natural litter). Keep this mulch 6 to 12 inches away from the root collar (junction of trunk and roots). An exception to the no summer water rule would be newly planted oaks (for the first 2 to 3 years after planting, until they are "established") and also during droughts that occur during the normal rainy season. 10. Sunscald is the death of bark, and sometimes the underlying wood, due to the heat of the sun. This often occurs when over -pruning removes a large amount of foliage, newly exposing previously sheltered tissue. 11. Topping is the practice of indiscriminately cutting back large diameter branches of a mature tree to some predetermined lower height: to reduce the overall height of the tree. Cuts are made to buds, stubs or lateral branches not large enough to assume the terminal role. Reputable arborists no longer recommend topping because it is a particularly destructive pruning practice. It is stressful to mature trees and may result in reduced vigor, decline and even death of trees. In addition, branches that regrow from topping cuts are weakly attached to the tree and are in danger of splitting out. Large topping cuts may have significant decay associated with them, which weakens the branch as well as the attachment of any secondary branches attached nearby. Topping may be useful however, for immediately reducing the risk of a high risk tree that will soon be removed. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 401-409 Alberto Way. September 26, 2015 Page 39 of 39 This Page Intentionally Left Blank CDG CANNON DESIGN GROUP September 10, 2015 Ms. Jennifer Savage Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 401-409 Alberto Way Dear Jennifer: ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. My comments are as follows: NEIGH BORHOOD CONTEXT The site is located at the corner of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, and is currently occupied by three office buildings with some office space located both below and above grade level. Photographs of the site and surrounding buildings are shown on the following page. kJE)'-wJ31 ' 111 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 TEL: 415,331.3795 CDGPLAN@PACBELL,NET 401-409 Alberto Way Design Review Comments September 10, 2015 Page 2 Existing building at the Alberto Way Comer New one-story retail building across Alberto Way Adjacent residential development immediately north of the site Adjacent residential development immediately north of the site Existing building at the center of the site Corner at new one-story retail building across Alberto Way Existing landscaping along the north edge of the site Adjacent residential development immediately across Alberto Way CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 401-409 Alberto Way Design Review Comments September 10, 2015 Page 3 CONCERNS AND ISSUES The motor hotel immediately across Alberto Way has recently been renovated, and a one-story retail structure has been added to the complex. The existing motor hotel site immediately across Los Gatos -Saratoga Road has been included within the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. And, the site sits at the entry to a large residential neighborhood to the north. The proposed design of this project seems quite large in scale with not much effort made to blend into that con- text - see the site plan superimposed onto the aerial photo below. The relationship of the buildings' design, scale and character to their smaller scale neighbors seems further exacerbated by the tall entry and window features on both buildings. It is also limited by the relative small offsets in the wall planes. The design seems to adopt some of the features of the first Netflix buildings north of Highway 85, but the facades are much flatter (see Netflix photos below). CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 401-409 Alberto Way Design Review Comments September 10, 2015 Page 4 There are also some awkward relationships between the first and second floors elevations of Building A. These features are very much out of scale and character with any other commercial Upper and lower facades or residential structures nearby are not very well related RECOMMENDATIONS My feeling is that the scale and character of these buildings is not very suitable for this site. My recommendation is to ask the applicant to look at the building designs again with the goal of making them more sympathetic to their surround- ings. Below are some examples of building forms and supportive details that might be helpful in starting that process. CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA , 94939 401-409 Alberto Way Design Review Comments September 10, 2015 Page 5 Jennifer, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry L. Cannon CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 This Page Intentionally Left Blank CPG CANNON DESIGN !GROUP ' y March 18, 2016 Ms. Jennifer Armer Communit , Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 401 & 405 Alberto Way Dear Jennifer: ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN I reviewed the new drawings, and have previously visited the site. My comments are as follows: NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The site is located at the corner of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, and is currently occupied by three office buildings with office space located both below and above grade level. Photographs of the site and surrounding build- ings are shown on the following page. 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 TEL: 415.331.3795 CDGPLAN@PACBLLL.NET 40! & 505 Alberto Way Design Review Comments March 18, 2016 Page 2 Existing site building at the Alberto Way Corner New one-story retail building across Alberto Way Adjacent residential development immediately north of the site Adjacent residential development immediately north of the site Existing building at the center of the site Corner at new one-story retail building across Alberto Way Existing landscaping along the north edge of the site Adjacent residential development immediately across Alberto Way CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 401 & 505 Alberto Way Design Review Comments March 18, 2016 Page 3 CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 first reviewed this project last September and noted the following major concern. The motor hotel immediately across Alberto IVay has recently been renovated, and a one-story retail structure has been added to the complex. The existing motor hotel site immediately across Las Gatos -Saratoga Road has been included within the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. And, the site sits at the entry to a large residential neighborhood to the north ( see the site plan superimposed onto the aerial photo below). The relationship of the building' design,, scale and character to their smaller scale neighbors seemed to be exacerbated by the tall entry and window features on both buildings In summary the proposed design of this project last_ fall seemed visually quite large in scale and not suflicicntly sensitive to its surrounding neighborhood context or to its prominent location at the enhy to the adjacent residential neighborhood. Following the review letter staff met with the applicant and the applicant's design professionals in early November to discuss the issues and work toward a project that would be a more comfortable fit on this site. Over the following weeks, the design has been greatly refined as shown on the illustrations on the following page. CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 401 & 505 Alberto Way Design Review Comments March 18, 2016 Page 4 These features are very much out of scale and character with any other commercial or residential structures nearb Original Design East Elevation 405 Alberto Way 1 l A IL Riff 1�1i I ,b .13y2` MI II pi 0 0 sm TRI 7 Current Design East Elevation 405 Alberto Way Current Design Overall Sketch 405 Alberto Way �17 SWAP iN,.111;1401.N. ssr ma ■ MAIM 111 I1I _law rwvwr• wwv• i CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 401 & 505 Alberto Way Design Review Comments March 18, 2016 Page 5 Current Design Alberto Way Frontage 405 Alberto Way RECOMMEN DATIONS I believe that the design is well done and sympathetic to the other uses and structures in the immediate neighborhood. I have no recommendations for further changes. Jennifer, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that 1 did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry L. Cannon CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 This Page Intentionally Left Blank TOWN OF 11.OS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354-6874 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR JUNE 10, 2015, HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. The meeting was called to order at 4:30 P.M. ATTENDANCE Members Present: Absences: Barbara Spector Mary Badame Marcia Jensen Kendra Burch Thomas O'Donnell Staff Present: Laurel Prevetti, Assistant Town Manager/Community Development Director Joel Paulson, Planning Manager Jennifer Savage, Senior Planner Applicant: John Duquette (architect), Architectural Technologies Shane Arters (applicant), LP Acquisitions, LLC Randy Lamb (applicant), LAMB Partners, LLC Heard out of order ITEM 2: Approval ofMinutes from August 13, 2014 ITEM 3: Approval ofMinutes from December 10, 2014 Barbara Spector moved to approve the August 13, 2014 and December I0, 2014 minutes. The motion was seconded by Tom 0 'Donnell and approved unanimously. ITEM 1: 401 to 409 Alberto Way Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Application CD-15-001 Requesting review of conceptual plans to demolish three existing office buildings and construct two, two-story office buildings with underground parking on property zoned CH. APN 529-23-0 1 8. PROPERTY OWNER: CWA Realty APPLICANT: Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Savage The applicant team presented their proposal: Two Class A Office buildings. o Two levels of underground parking. EXHIBIT 1 3 C) Facilities for bicyclists including 99 bicycle parking spaces and showers. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee June 10, 2015 Page 2 of 4 • Architecture intended to reflect a small town feel. • An opportunity to provide office space with a reverse commute. • A traffic study was drafted and shows the study intersections will operate at acceptable levels. CDAC Comments and Questions: This list is a high level summary of the issues raised and responses (in italics) provided by the applicant team, Use • How did the applicant decide to expand office use in Los Gatos? Based on demand fog- Class A office space. • Does the applicant's office vacancy rate assume the new Netflix development (Albright Way) is occupied, including the unbuilt buildings? Yes. • How does the proposed office square footage compare to the existing office square footage? The existing office square footage is approximately 30,000 square feet; the proposed office square footage is approximately 90,000 square feet. • What is the average square foot per person of the applicant's recent projects? The average depends on the type of use. • How many people would occupy the buildings? The occupancy depends on the type of use. Traffic • What intersections were studied in the traffic study? Los Gatos Boulevard and Highway 9; Alberto Way and Highway 9; University Avenue and Highway 9; and Caldwell/Kennedy and Los Gatos Boulevard. • How does the applicant define a reverse commute? Southbound trips on Highway 17_ • Does the traffic study take into account traffic from the existing use? Yes. • Concerned about traffic congestion; Highway 9 and Alberto Way is a busy intersection. • Does the traffic study assume the Los Gatos Lodge use remains? Yes. • Where does the traffic study assume vehicles will stack? The traffic study will include this information. • Beyond the level of service calculations, what does the traffic consultant conclude about the everyday operation of the intersections and experience of the delays on Los Gatos streets? This is to be determined, • Speaking from experience, there are severe delays on Los Gatos streets. • Concerned about traffic issues. • Concerned about the increase in building square footage and the traffic impacts from the increase. • How will TDM (Traffic Demand Management) work? The applicant will explore this. • 1t is hard to understand that an increase in square footage would not increase traffic. • The applicant should provide a construction management plan and consider school hours in that plan. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee June 10, 2015 Page 3 of 4 Parking • How does the developer provide bicycle commute incentives? Bicycle parking, showers, and lockers. • Will the underground parking create buildings higher than the existing office buildings? This is to be determined. • Will the underground parking require digging under the existing parking lot or filling above it? The underground parking will be under the existing parking. • What is the depth of excavation? The applicant will include this information with the application. • What is the volume of excavation? The applicant will include this information ,with the application. • How many trucks will be required for excavation? The applicant will include this information with the application. • Is the applicant required to providing parking for the new restaurant across the Alberto Way? No, there are no parking agreements between the properties. • The applicant should talk to the restaurant about parking. Architecture • Does the proposed FAR and coverage meet the Town's limitations? The applicant believes so and staff will study this question with the application. • What are the applicant's past projects in the Bay Area? One example is in Los Altos. • Concerned about building height. • There is an existing nice feeling and environment on Alberto Way and the proposed mass may take away from the existing environment. • What was the thought behind the proposed architecture? The style was used in other developments. • The mass of the proposal seems large. • Can the applicant and/or architect minimize the mass of the project? The applicant will explore this. • Would the applicant be amenable to setback the second story from the first story? The applicant will explore this. • How does the height and location of the north side of building # 1 compare with existing buildings? The applicant will include this information with the application. • Will the residents see new building mass or walls? The applicant will include this information with the application. • What is the scale of the proposed change to the residents? The applicant will include this information with the application. • Residents may see a dramatic change in views. • Will residents' views and sunlight be affected by project? The applicant will include this information with the application. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee June 10, 2015 Page 4 of 4 • The applicant should provide a perspective of the change in the residents' views. • Take into consideration the residential views. Site Design • The site is relatively hidden and setback. • Explain the grade changes from the sidewalk to the site. • Will the applicant save mature trees? There are trees along Highway 9 that are not on the subject property. Other tree information will be provided with the application. • Do the plans show where the neighboring residential buildings start? The applicant will include this with the application. • It appears that the new building will be located at existing trash and recycling locations. Other • The committee was pleased that the applicant intends to complete an EIR (Environmental Impact Report). • The applicant is encouraged to conduct community outreach, including outreach to the residences across Alberto Way. Verbal Communications: A CWA Realty (property owner) representative commented that the restaurant has not approached the property owner about parking. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:09 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee is Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 4:30 p.m. Prepared by: Jot, Paulson, Planning Manager hPlanning Commission Chair N:1DEv1CDAC\CDAC MINUTES420I516-10.15.doc Jennifer Arrner Subject: RE: proposed Alberto Way Project From: Shirley Ryan[mailto:shirley_ryan2001@gmaii.com) Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 5:49 PM To: Planning Subject: proposed Alberto Way Project This project in one word, DISASTER!! Traffic already is dangerous coming in/out of Alberto, especially when cars park on both sides of Alberto Way. We have 110 units of 55+ seniors that live in LG Commons, who enjoy walking, plus all the other families in Buena Vista and apartment complexes., Noise, Dirt, pollution to the air will be terrible with such a large undertaking project. The current setting of buildings nestle into the environment nicely- tell the OWNER he needs to market his empty office space. Another big word: GREED!! Best, Shirley Ryan Resident of Los Gatos Commons Alberto Way i amithir 1 4 Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: planned construction on Alberto way - citizen comment From: Roman Rufanov [mailto:rrufanov@gmail.com) Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 11:13 AM To: Planning Subject: planned construction on Alberto way - citizen comment Dear Planner I see marker flags came up for proposed office building in Alberto way. I would like to voice my concerns regarding this construction. a) Children Safety With new traffic turning left to Alberto and left again into proposed new building - it will become impossible for children to cross Alberto on the way to school. • children can not cross Alberto away from stop light since cars are speeding to Alberto Oaks and there are no speed bumps or lights • they can not come to stop light since 200+ cars will be trying to tum there in morning • 200 cars means that car will be turning every 15 seconds • Large construction trucks means that driver will not see small children in from of them. • 001d Alberto way does not have any other stoplight to cross it i It is not safe and should be addressed by reducing scope of the project. b) Fire safety concerns Intersection of Alberto and HW9 is the only way out for conununity in case of brush fires. It will be severely constrained by construction equipment and flagman for 2 years. Access for ambulances will also be constrained when large trucks turn about or make u-turns. It is not safe and should be addressed by reducing scope of the project. c) Proposed building should have ample visitor parking. Otherwise everyone will be parking in nearby steeps and complexes. Since this is the only street - that means that it will be all taken and no space left for residents. Also conflicts will erupt as people start parking in residential designated spots. d) Misfit from style prospective Nigh concrete and steel and glass building does not fit current low-key low -profile neighborhood. I bought the property based on what I seen 1 year ago. Tuning it into business -dominated area is not what most residents wanted when they bought their property. This will greatly degrade quality of life. e) Negative impact on property value Proximity of the large business complex will have negative impact on property values. i Jennifer Armer From: Victor Bell <vbel140@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 4:02 PM To: Joel Paulson; Jennifer Armer Subject: In Support of 401 Alberto Way Project Dear Joel & Jennifer, Having been a Los Gatos homeowner within the Creekside Village complex, I wanted to reach out to you in support of the office project at 401 Alberto Way. I am familiar with the office buildings being proposed by Lamb Partners and believe that this would be a great fit within the community. Given the immediate access to the freeway and downtown, I am confident that the project will be very well received by leading high-tech companies that will bring much needed business to our restaurants and other downtown service providers. As Los Gatos offers few opportunities for leading edge companies to locate within the city's borders, I feel that the town suffers from a lack of diversity and intellectual stimulation. I understand that some may have a hard time with any form of change, but I truly feel that the subject project will be a great addition to Los Gatos. I appreciate your taking the time to read my email and will hope good thoughts. Sincerely, Victor Bell (408)829-4853 cell Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: Alberto Way Development From: put Jensen [mailto:yorvik6Ca4mail.com] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 10:47 AM To: Planning Subject: Alberto Way Development I wanted to add my strong objection to the proposed office development on Alberto Way. I have lived on Alberto Way for over two years, and have been a resident of Los Gatos for almost 9 years. I go for extensive walks daily, and am concerned about the added traffic, parking, and congestion this new project would bring. Alberto way is home to many seniors who enjoy the neighborhood while walking their dogs, or just going out for a stroll. The street itself is a blind "S" curve, fairly narrow, and the street parking is always crowded. I have personally witnessed many close calls between cars and pedestrians on this already crowded street. the proposed new development will create even more unsafe conditions for those of us that walk and cross the street daily, and will negatively change the neighborhood. I am strongly opposed to this project, and request the Planning Commission and Town Council to reject it, or at the very least significantly downsize it and require much more onsite parking and noise and traffic mitigation. Thank you. Paul Jensen 439 Alberto Way i Jennifer Armer From: Mark Nicholson <BusMark@thenicholsonco.conm> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 451 PM To: Joel Paulson; Jennifer Armer Subject: 401 Alberto Way Proposal Dear Mr. Paulson and Ms, Armer, I am a business owner located at 20 5 Santa Cruz Avenue in Los Gatos. I wanted to take a moment to voice my support for the Class A office proposal to be located at 401 Alberto Way. After looking through the literature, I am quite impressed. The location looks perfect for office use. I am further excited about the parking requirement of 4 spaces per 1000 SF. Based on my experiences trying to drive to my office building and then locate parking, it makes a tot of sense to build more office space outside of the town center, where traffic is less congested and parking can be provided. I think it is important to support job growth in the city, but it should be done in more strategically located places such as 401 Alberto Way. Thank you, Mark Nicholson President The Nicholson Company To Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission Application for New Class A Office Development 401/405/409 Alberto Way Los Gatos Village History: Constructed early to mid 1960's with a Town and Country Design as a shopping center, but converted to office space upon the initial leasing and build out process. Complex was sold in January 1986 to CWA Realty in a private sale. CWACP ( the parent corp) needed a new office space to house its software/hardware development operation. The failing restaurant that occupied 60% of the 401 building was gutted and redesigned and refurbished to accommodate this need. CWACP sold off the operation which remained in place for two years, and which them relocated to their headquarters in Mountain View in 2002, leaving this space vacant. (4500 SF). Physical: 30,000 SF comprised of 3 buildings each 3 floors, 1st floor of which is below parking lot grade. 40% of space is on the 1st floor and has 7'ceilings, windowless on 3 sides. Top floor - 18% of total space is ADA inaccessible with no feasible way to make it so. 1st floor is ADA accessible only with a ramp located in front of 409 building, and which makes it a long hike to the 401 building. Lower floor has embedded storage, communication tunnels, old boiler room which comprising about 12 % of the total SF. Parking lot has approximately 260 spots with access through 3 driveways from Alberto Way, housing trash enclosure, garden and tool shed. The flow through design allows for unauthorized use by oversized vehicles (semi trucks, auto carriers, construction equipment on trailers i.e.) of the parking lot by the general public. Electric service to the individual offices is undersized for the most part - 40 amp to 100 amp for most offices due to original use design . Heating and cooling efficiency and cost is challenged by single pane windows direction of window placement and poor insulation ability due to construction age and methods and sizing of spaces (which range from 270 SF to 3000 SF and all sizes in between) and the multilevel design and the directional placement of the buildings. Safety: The parking lot is a constant challenge in keeping tenants and their clients safe and in keeping the surface maintained due to the "uninvited" traffic to the property. The "uninvited" traffic is not only vehicular, but also pedestrian. The complex has become the default playground for children who now live on Alberto Way, the dog park for the residents living on Alberto Way, the ride share parking lot for the general public, the exercise track for the residential neighbors and the overflow parking lot for both the neighboring residential units and commercial operations. During the rainy and cold season, our below grade 1st floor and our covered walkways as well as landscape areas become the housing for the homeless . Our parking lots and landscaped areas coupled with our convenient location to the freeway have made us a frequent site for the drug traffic trade along the highway #17 corridor, as well as the "mail theft" that has become prevalent now in the area. Summary: The buildings which were repurposed after their construction are now 50 years old and in need of significant repairs and remodeling to bring them up to the infrastructure, energy efficiency and safety requirements of modern technology and office space. The repairs and remodeling in some degree have happened over the past 30 years under the ownership of CWA Realty. However it has now reached a point where this will require demolition and significant financial infusion to accomplish the task and to make this property a safe, efficient and attractive addition to the neighborhood, while providing a return on investment to the Town of Los Gatos and the new investors . Because of the scope of such an undertaking, CWA Realty, as a single property owner, will not be able to stay in business while this transition happens, and therefore does not have the financial resources to support the process. The designs as presented by the applicant for the redevelopment appear to present the physical and esthetic needs of an office building that can provide the safety, energy efficiency and financial return that will serve the community of the Town of Los Gatos for decades to come. Prepared and submitted by Pat Lynch Controller and Leasing Manager for CWA Realty and CWACP since 1985. 401 Alberto Way Suite #2 Los Gatos, CA. 95032 Jennifer Armer From: paul jensen <yorvik6@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2016 3:18 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Alberto Way project Hello Jennifer. I was advised that my email objecting to the proposed project on Alberto Way was forwarded to you, but I just wanted to follow up. I've had a chance to speak with more of my neighbors here at the Commons condominium complex. Suffice it to say that my neighbors and I are extremely concerned, and everyone I have spoken to objects to the project. Key concerns are the disruption, noise and pollution during the construction phase, and the interference with emergency vehicles both during and after construction. Many (Amy neighbors are quite elderly, disabled, and require the use of wheelchairs, walkers, and oxygen. Their health and safety will absolutely be jeopardized by the project. The increase in traffic will result in drivers in search of street parking, or those that miss the entrance to the new office building, to proceed further on Alberto Way, and use our alleyways or our guest parking driveway to turn around. This is already a problem for us, and I have been out walking and stopped by drivers who are lost or are in search of parking on many occasions. I urge Town staff to reject this inappropriate proposed use, and to help us maintain the residential nature of our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter! Paul Jensen 439 Alberto Way 1 Jennifer Arrner From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Chris Bajorek <chris@bajorek.us> Sunday, July 24, 2016 3:24 PM Jennifer Arrner Planning 401-405 Alberto Way Dear Ms. Jennifer Armer and Members of the Los Gatos Planning Commission, I am a volunteer for the Town of Los Gatos Adopt a Highway group. Our goal is to pick up trash from and improve the appearance of key roads and intersections in town. During this past Saturday, July 23, 2016 we concentrated our work at the interchange between CA Highways 9 and 17. We started work at 8:30 AM and we had front row seats to observe traffic in both directions on these two highways as well as interchange traffic in all directions. Traffic was essentially paralyzed in all directions but one when we started work and this condition lasted until well after 2 PM. I have lived in several countries as well as several major cities in the US. I have never seen nor experienced such level of traffic and gridlock before. The subject development is proposed to as a minimum, triple vehicular trips within only a few car lengths of the aforementioned traffic disaster. It will only make it worse. I strongly recommend The Town adopt a moratorium on this and any other planned development until the local and state governments.come up with and implement a solution to this unacceptable traffic problem. Sincerely Yours, Dr. Christopher Bajorek 120 Clover Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 Jennifer Armer From: Kris McFarland-Werner<krisw@hillhouseconstruction.com> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 12:10 PM To: Joel Paulson; Jennifer Armer Subject: 401 Alberto Way Hello, Having been a long time resident of Los Gatos, I would like to express my support for the new Class A office development on Alberto Way. I've read the letter of justification submitted by Lamb Partners and I'm familiar with the site. I believe that this is a necessary and well developed project that fills a need for the town of Los Gatos to increase the amount of Class A office space. The development meets a design intent that would conform to the town's look and feel and would better comply with the principles of social, economic and ecological sustainability. It is also widely understood that this transition to a Class A sustainable building will also encourage tenants that would be a benefit to the town's economy by shopping and spending money in the community. Since the EIR notes that there would be no significant negative impact on traffic either, i see no reason why there should be opposition to this project. With Kindest Regards, Kris McFarland -Werner I Director Business Development Hillhouse Construction Company 140 Charcot Ave. San Jose, CA 95131 0: 408-467-1000 x107 C: 408-205-4728 ITM Hillhouse 1 Jennifer Armer From: Marietta Riney <mariettariney@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 3:54 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Fwd: Alberto Way development This email is to make you and the planning commission aware of some of the concerns that the residents of Los Gatos Commons Condo community have about the proposed development40l -404 Alberto Way. Thank you. Peace , Marietta Begin forwarded message: From: Marietta Riney <mariettariney@gmail.com> Date: June 13, 2016 at 8:03:46 AM PDT To: "planning@losgatosca.gov" <planning@Iosgatosca.gov> Subject: Alberto Way development I live at the Los Gatos Commons Condos on Alberto Way and I urge the planning commission to listen and consider the concerns of all the residents regarding the proposed development at the corner of Alberto Way and Hgwy 9. This expansion of the use of this property , with the increase in traffic at this location, will negatively affect all the property owners ability to access and egress their residence. This is a 1 lane street each way with parking on both sides of a winding street. The recent development of the Satellite medical facility and the renovation of the Best Western property, plus the opening of the 57 Gril1 restaurant have already taxed the daily flow of traffic onto Alberto Way and the residential areas farther down the street. The Los Gatos Commons is a senior age restricted condo complex. This means that we have frequent EMS response teams that require an unimpeded approach to our complex. You are aware that there is this one short street that is the only way in or out for 2 town home complexes, 2 condo complexes, an office complex at the end of the street, and the previously mentioned hotel, restaurant, and medical facility. The demolition phase and construction phase at this intersection will be a nightmare, not to mention the resulting increased traffic if this development were to be built. Please take this information into consideration . Marietta Riney 449 Alberto Way #240 Los Gatos CA. 95032 Peace , Marietta i Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: Project on Alberto Way Original Message ----- From: Karen Szabo fmailto:szabokaren420@gmail.comj Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 7:00 PM To: Planning Subject: Project on Alberto Way We as a collective group here at 420 Alberto Way are in strong opposition Of your proposed project there aT 401 Alberto Way The developers have not stayed true to the original plan and now want increases occupancy to more than doubled of what they told at their first community open house. This project can not and should be approved. This town is in constant grid lock no matter what time of day. This project is not in compliance with they this town. I have lived here my entire life and seriously, we as a town, as a community do not need this huge complex built at 401 Alberto Way We all Oppose this project all around. Thank you, A very upset 420 Alberto Way Resident. 1 Jennifer Armer From: Peggy Ellett <pellett48@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 1:02 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: LP Acquisitions. Proposed Construction I would like to pass on my very real concerns about the development currently being considered at 401-405 Alberto Way in Los Gatos, This proposed project would put an undue strain on the traffic situation and would frequently contribute to blocking access to those of us living along Alberto Way. can imagine that emergency vehicles might have difficulties gaining access to the street at certain times of the day. This intersection is already becoming congested and in the summer it is even worse. Current efforts to stem the use of this area for "detours" to the coast are not very successful and adding more congestion to that mess has the potential to become a nightmare. l urge you to not approve this project. It is not in the best interests of those of us already living here and I do not believe it contributes to the quality of life in Los Gatos in general. While I understand the need for economic growth, I think it is in the best interests of Los Gatos to control that growth so it does not become a detriment to our way of life. Peggy Ellett 443 Alberto Way, Unit B219 Los Gatos, CA 95032 360-921-7995 i Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: Concerns for the Construction on Alberto Way From: Sasha P [mailto:sashaprsOgmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 1:48 PM To: Planning Subject: Concerns for the Construction on Alberto Way Dear Planners, 1 believe that the new planned construction would be disruptive to the residents living on Alberto Way. - Construction would cause a lot of traffic - big trucks are a safety hazard to small children and/or pets - there are about 20 kids who walk to school and having trucks driving around would be very dangerous and a recipe for disaster - the noise would be very difficult to live with especially if a family has a newborn baby - the amount of gas in the air would not only make it uncomfortable to live in and will cause a lot of pollution That's why l believe it would be a good idea to scale down the project idea for the safety and well being of surrounding neighborhoods. i Jennifer Armer From: Jim Wagner <jimwag49er@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 2:30 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 401-405 alberto way project Dear Jennifer I am writing to you about my concerns regarding this proposed project that is being considered at the above address. I am a new resident at the Commons down the street and moved here with a lot of pride and happiness. The beauty of this area is priceless and I value everything I now own. cannot attend the upcoming meeting but want to voice my feelings, opinions and my say about this big mistake. I am very, very much against constructing a two story office building and underground parking of any sort in this location, First of all it is a quite area for seniors, mostly condos on a dead-end street, consider the traffic in and out, the already resident parking in the street and the only way in and out of Alberto Way for all of us. AND THIS FOR TWO YEARS? With ongoing construction and trucks in and out every day with noise and dust and possible health issues I don't think anyone would want to live this way If this project is approved, it will cause a lot of congestion and daily problems with traffic at the corner and having a two- story building at that corner will be an eye -sore and block the view of the trees and mountains which we basically pay for by living here. This is a residential area and not suited for office buildings, businesses or parking garages. If this project is approved, then what happens to the value of our property and our taxes'? We are all seniors here at the Commons and take pride with what we have and DO NOT WANT THIS PROJECT TO TAKE PLACE. I ask the Planning Department to strongly deny this request to build this project and save the environment as best we can and not destroy the good that we have left. Thank You. Marge Wagner 443 Alberto Way #B222 Los Gatos, Ca 95032 Jennifer Armer From: Samira Hamidi <seslambo@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 4:06 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 401-405 Alberto Hi Jennifer, I am writing to you in regards to 401-4O5 Alberto new developments. My husband and I live in 443 Alberto way and are completely against this development. We were attached to his community because it is quiet and away from office buildings. We absolutely don't want to deal with more noise, traffic and construction. Our vote is NO. I am planning on attending the meeting on August loth. Thank you, Samira and Fazi i July 24, 2016 City of Los Gatos RECEIVED JUL 26 ZOl6 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING D!VISiO3 just went to the meeting at 401 Alberto Way regarding the massive 92 thousand sqft building they would like. The drwaings looked really nice and the architecture ok. They talked about traffic and how it would not be impacted. They said their plan with regards to the buildings met all of the town requirements. They said they wanted to build townhomes and the city said no. I mentioned that the two other properties nearby, the los gatos lodge and the buildings at the end of our street are underutilized and development is in the future. They said they can not consider the universe when planning their site. The person who owns the buildings at the end of our street said he would like to redevelope his property and the amount of sqft hes looking for is astounding. I said to the people that they need to consider these other sites when planning their site. He said no, they consider whats going on now but not in the future. I said you should consider these variable because the public does. We tend to look at the big picture, not just one parcel at a time. He said the city tends to take each parcel at a time and theirs does meet exactly what the city is looking for. The parcel at the end of Alberto is 5.5 acres and has 56 thousand sqft of office space. Could you imagine what he would want if this company gets 92 thousand on half the space. 35 feet high is high especially when its all the way around two huge buildings. They will plant trees bordering us. How high, what type. They may drop stuff on us and their roots may intrude and ruin our driveway. When they did up their asphalt it could ruin our olive trees bordering our property. 500 people will enter/exit from there daily and often more than once. Couple this with a build out of LG Lodge and the parcel at the end of Alberto Way. The city will have a nightmare of a traffic issue on Los Gatos Saratoga road. The height of the buildings bordering our home is to high and will lower our home values. 1 spoke to two realtors and they agreed and also mentioned the homes that had a view will now look at the side of a building which will have a significant negative value effect of those homes. Since ly: ttla Bradford Martin 435 Alberto Way #3 Los Gatos City Of Los Gatos RE: PROPOSED ELiLDIENIU AT iif11 ALE3ERTU WAY My name is Brad Martin and i live at 435 Alberto Way #3. I want to mention a few things about this proposed office budding and Los Gatos. Overall 1 am pro development and I understand this property is under utiTzed considering its size. Having underground parking is good and also a reason to ask for more sqft of building sppace but it does not decrease traffic flow. Thee height of the two story building should not be any higher than a normal two story office building. The building should not stick out like a sore thumb. The city and residents do not need a big building staring them in the face. Should be pleasant architecture, not two big blocks sitting there. Trees and shrubs should soften the area surrounding the structures. The developer sent out a card to residents asking for input. They seem to indicate that the city is ok with their overall plan. That the traffic in general and at the intersection will be just fine. They did a traffic study. Oh, a traffic study, wow I guess they are right, NOT. Alberto Way is very high density residential. There are several good size office buildings at the end of Alberto Way and in fact this property is also significantly under utilized. Those buildings are really nice but one day some developer may want another highrse there because its at the end of the street and wont affect anyone, right?, NOT. The hotel renovation at the corner is very nice for sure and i was surprised to see they were allowed to have so much square footage built on that lot. Los Gatos Lodge across the street. Now there is a property just ready to be developed. One day it will be done and the traffic to and from that property will increase significantly. This among other items needs to be considered when helping the devi r plan the building at 401 Alberto Way. I live here in LG and like the town, its a great place to live for many reasons. Its a large city with a significant amount of commercial property. I believe the more large buildings the more congestion and less desirable the city will become. Ask almost anyone who lives here, they will say that traffic is now having a significant negative impact on Los Gatos residents. We are inundated by beach traffic on the weekend. So much so that residents need to snake around to get home. The amount of traffic off hwy 17 from ale culling through W to get to cupertino and beyond is large. You have the North 40 and other large parcels on LG Blvd all which will increase congestion on the roads. Netflix and the new building is nice but again its there with all the employees and ther cars. The city needs to ask itself, when is enough enough. I know people have a right to develop their property but size matters now more than ever. Where is a huge property LG Lodge looming in the future, This proposed big 92,800 sqft building at 401 Alberto is ridiculous for this area. We are at a tipping point. Even if you dont live on Alberto Way, adding another huge building anywhere in the city is not good for residents and especially this massive sqft project so close to town. Jennifer Armer From: Raymond Toney <raymond.toney2@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 3:14 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 401-409 Alberto Way project am writing on behalf of the residents of Los Gatos Commons Sr. Community. A group of us met with the Developers of the new office complex at 401-409 Alberto Way and we were told that the fire department had already approved the project. I do not see how, at this stage of development, this can be possible. I would like to know whom to speak to at the Fire Dept, to confirm this. Alberto Way is a dead end street with no extra fire safety exits, except for a small, one way street for emergency exit, through the neighboring project's streets to Bella Vista St. which exit is blocked off and gated. The additional traffic caused by the addition of 380 cars at that project would cause emergency traffic to be delayed. The developer stated that their project's traffic study showed it would take one minute per car to clear their garage. This equates to one hour per 60 cars leaving the underground parking garage. The other fire hazard is that there is only one entrance and exit to and from the parking garage. Alberto Way is a very narrow street as it is and there is no room for two cars to pass side by side with the number of cars parked on the street on both sides. Thanking you in advance for this information, Raymond M. Toney, Past President, Los Gatos Commons Homeowner's Association. 453 Alberto Way, #241, Los Gatos, Ca. 95032 (408) 354-5735 Jennifer Armer From: Nick Casaccia <nickcasaccia@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 8:17 PM To: Joel Paulson; Jennifer Armer Subject: Lamb Partners Office Development - Alberto Way Dear Mr. Paulson and Ms. Armer, My name is Nick Casaccia, and I am a 22-year Los Gatos resident. I am writing to you in support of the Lamb Partners' Class A building complex on Alberto Way. While the development would be aesthetically beautiful, the basis for my support comes from the economic and social wellbeing impacts that such a development can provide. From an economic perspective, a new office development brings with it a higher property tax base which will increase town revenue and contribute to the school system that Los Gatos residents, including my family, have benefitted from. The development will also bring jobs to Los Gatos, which directly supports local commerce. From a social wellbeing perspective, the expected tenants of the development are likely to be technology companies, who will incentivize their employees to utilize sustainable transportation methods to and from work. Thank you for your consideration of these points, Nick Casaccia 1 Jennifer Armer From: Raymond Toney <raymond.toney2@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 3:14 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 401-409 Alberto Way project I am writing on behalf of the residents of Los Gatos Commons Sr. Community. A group of us met with the Developers of the new office complex at 401-409 Alberto Way and we were told that the fire department had already approved the project. I do not see how, at this stage of development, this can be possible. I would like to know whom to speak to at the Fire Dept, to confirm this. Alberto Way is a dead end street with no extra fire safety exits, except for a small, one way street for emergency exit, through the neighboring project's streets to Bella Vista St. which exit is blocked off and gated. The additional traffic caused by the addition of 380 cars at that project would cause emergency traffic to be delayed. The developer stated that their project's traffic study showed it would take one minute per car to clear their garage. This equates to one hour per 60 cars leaving the underground parking garage. The other fire hazard is that there is only one entrance and exit to and from the parking garage. Alberto Way is a very narrow street as it is and there is no room for two cars to pass side by side with the number of cars parked on the street on both sides. Thanking you in advance for this information, Raymond M. Toney, Past President, Los Gatos Commons Homeowner's Association. 453 Alberto Way, #241, Los Gatos, Ca. 95032 (408) 354-5735 Jennifer Armer From: Dick McGowan <dickmcgowan114@grrmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:15 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 401-405 Alberto Way My heart sank when l saw the orange netting going up on the corner of Alberto way.My husband and I downsized a year ago after living off of Quito Road for 47 years raising a family there.We were happy to find the Commons because this is a road Tess traveled and a place for families,we enjoy seeing children out playing,walking our dog without much traffic.The atmosphere here is peaceful and the thought of another redevelopment in our back yard not to mention the noise and congestion for 2 years is very distressing my husband. I see so much greed these days it breaks my heart. Please do not approve this plan. Constance McGowan 453 Alberto Way Sent from my iPad Jennifer Armer From: Marjorie Cahn <artmarj@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 10:26 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Planning; artmarj@aol.com Subject: Proposed Project 401-405 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, CA Att. Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP and the Los Gatos Planning Commission: We are Los Gatos Residents who moved here 46 years ago to enjoy the tranquil quiet atmosphere of a small town. Since that time, there has been a slow decline in the quality of life in Los Gatos fueled by the re -development of small land parcels resulting in increased population density and ever increasing traffic and gridlock. The proposed 401- 405 Alberto Way Project is the poster child for such desecration of our small town way of life. This project proposes to triple the square footage of the current office building with new construction and provide a massive increase in parking facility to approximately 400 spaces with a significant resultant increase in vehicular traffic in an already impacted area. The parking garage is evidently designed with a single entrance ramp which will doubtless lead to cars backing into and obstructing Alberto Way's vehicle and pedestrian access particularly during peak times of garage usage. The intersection of Highway 9 with Los Gatos Blvd. and the on and off ramps to Highway 17 are already becoming disastrous. The increased vehicular density in this limited area of 1-2 blocks is certainly a formula for severe problems. The city permitted the over -development of another parcel on the same corner of Highway 9 and Alberto Way which has already lead to increased difficulty in pedestrian and vehicular access. We can only shudder to imagine the future ? development of a much larger parcel: the current site of the Los Gatos Lodge and its impact on the same beleaguered intersection. The city's traffic engineer reports, while voluminous, fail to address the fact that increasing vehicular traffic materially will functionally close off Highway 9 to local traffic and severely impact the quality of life of Los Gatos residents in general and Alberto Way residents specifically. Los Gatos can survive without an additional 60,000 square feet of office space. We need to put the quality of life of Los Gatos Residents before the convenience and income of outside developers. Sincerely yours. Jennifer Armer From: Jennifer LaForce <jenniferlaforce©gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 8:12 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Opposed to Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 / Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I am opposed to the 93K sq ft Office Building which is proposed between Hwy 17 & Los Gatos Blvd. It will generate more traffic than the recently denied North 40 proposed residential development. Our roads are already way too congested and the developer has vastly under -stated the limit of traffic & congestion it can add to Los Gatos. This affects everyone in the area who travels on Hwy-9 and Hwy- 17 The Planning Commission should "just say no!" to this one too. Thank you, Jennifer La Force Los Gatos Citizen and driver of both congested roadways 1 Jennifer Armer From: Paul Gundotra <paulgun007@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 5:05 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 401-405 Alberto Way Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged To Jennifer.T Armer As a resident of the area at 439 Alberto way #209, I strongly object to this proposed development on various grounds. Here are some of the reasons: The traffic at the light as is now, is very congested during the rush hour and during the school opening and closing hours. There is only one lane out of this community. At the light if some one is making left, every one has to wait, even those making right. Many times this light is only good for 15-20 seconds and only two cars can get by. During school hours, I have missed two lights waiting to get through. I think that is very unreasonable. As it is we need two lanes, one for left turn and for straight and another one for right turn. Adding more cars to this only one way our of this community will only make thing unbearable for the resident all ready living here. During construction phase and ongoing would impede emergency vehicles from getting in and out from the Commons. We would be exposed to air and noise pollution. During evacuation if and when called for, this new construction would make it impossible to do so in a reasonable and safe way. Finally, This project does not harmonize, nor blend with the scale and rhythm of this neighborhood of large senior residents. (see Town of Los gatos, 2020 general plan CD-1.2) Paul Gundotra 954-667-7285 i Jennifer Armer From: Elizabeth Borelli <elizabethborelli@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 8:04 PM To: Planning; Jennifer Armer Subject: Architecture and Site Application S-15-056, Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Planning Commission team, I writing to oppose the 93K sq ft Office Building proposed between Hwy 17 & Los Gatos Blvd. It will generate more traffic than the recently denied North 40 proposed residential development. Our roads are already way too congested and the developer has vastly under -stated the limit of traffic & congestion it can add to Los Gatos. This affects everyone in the area who travels on Hwy-9. Please help to preserve the integrity of our township and keep the highways safe. Elizabeth Borelli 22565 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 1 Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: 401-409 Alberto Way project concerns From: Sergey Melnik [mailto:sergmelnik@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 1:49 AM To: Planning Subject: 401-409 Alberto Way project concerns Dear Planner, I live in the Pueblo de Los Gatos apartment complex across from the proposed construction site at 401-409 Alberto Way and I would like to raise my concerns and oppose the project for the reasons expressed below. 1. Safety. During construction there will be sidewalk closures, so I and my children will have to use the road to go to school or downtown. Increased number of cars (and trucks during the construction phase) and people compromises security and safety. Many cars entering and exiting the new buildings will impose additional safety risks for me and my children when I walk or bike passed the building, which is the only way out. And we like to bike and walk! 2. Evacuation route. Our complex is at the street that is a dead end. To evacuate, we would need to pass the proposed building. It will make it impossible for many people residing in the residential complexes and commercials building to evacuate quickly, should there be any disaster. 3. Noise and dust. Our complex is just across from the site and construction will inevitably result in the increased noise and dust. Considering that construction most likely will take around 2 years, that would a significant factor on its own that reduces our quality of life in our complex and affects health of my children. 4. Traffic issues. Having massive commercial buildings nearby in addition to existing commercial complex at the end of Alberto Way, new restaurant, health facility, inn and three residential complexes on a single lane road will significantly increase the traffic considering that there is only one way out of our street. Waiting times at the light will be several times increased both in and out of Alberto Way. Delivering kids to their activities will become a problem. 5. Reduced air quality. Many cars idling at the red light or rushing on yellow will produce additional emissions to the air we breathe. I'rn concerned about my family health implications. 6. Non-conformant style and obstructing the view. The big buildings proposed are not inline in style with the other buildings nearby. Having it at this location also will obstruct the view on the mountains from our complex. Minor annoyance for some and property value cut for others. 7. Reduced property value and taxes to town. Big commercial building (with all the problems described above) in the closest proximity will change our 1 Jennifer Armer From: Victor <denisov.victor@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:32 AM To: Jennifer Armer; Planning Subject construction Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Planning Commission, We are unpleasantly surprised to see proposed construction size at Alebrto way. The flags show shown huge construction which will negatively impact our life. Can please review proposed plans and scale them down or cancel all together? The troubles which this will cause us are listed below: 1. Access for emergency vehicles will be restricted since large construction trucks will take one lane and flagman will control other. This is crucial issue since resident's age at Alberto Commons is over 60 and quite often over 70 years old 2. No escape during brush/forest fire . Proposed construction could block the only exit from Alberto Way. Current forest fire at Big Sur shows that fires are possible very close to Los Gatos. 3. Noise and dirt during construction. Current construction at HW 9 & HW 17 shown that dust inevitable during construction. This will negatively impact many all residents and especially the ones with asthma. 4. Too large and will create too much traffic. 400 cars turning left every morning and will create traffic jam at HW 9 and Alberto interaction. People will start parking on the street to same couple minutes and we will loose any free parking spots (used by quests and visiting relatives) 5. Construction will deprive of only walking route. Alberto way is the only available is the only walking street for older residents. We can not go up the hill (HW 9 south) or down the hill (hw 9 north) due to need to cross 4 ramps. With construction vehicle present we will loose the last opportunity to walk. Could you please seriously look into these issues? Maria & Victor Denisov 650-422-9674 439 Alberto Way, Unit A208, Los Gatos CA. 95032 i Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dear Ms Armer Lindsay Catterton <Icatte5850@aol.com> Friday, July 29, 2016 11:05 AM Jennifer Armer 401-405 Alberto way Follow up Flagged I have been a homeowner in Los Gatos since 1969 and now residing at 439 Alberto Way #105A (The Los Gatos Commons) I have watched the growth and change of this lovely community all these years and now cannot imagine anyone wanting to come new to this area!! The traffic is beyond out -of -control and seemingly nothing we can do about it at present time. Schools are beginning to lose their highstanding due to potential overcrowding. It is difficult to even go to the grocery store any day of the week and don't even try on the weekends!! I am opposed to the rebuilding of 401-405 Alberto Way!!! How can you even consider an underground parking with only ONE WAY in and out?!! The strain on traffic entering and leaving the East Los Gatos exit to Hway 17 will be unimaginable!!! PLEASE REJECT THIS PLAN!!! Sincerely Yours, Lindsay M. Catterton 439 Alberto Way #105 A Los Gatos 95032 also 244 Loma Alta Ave Los Gatos 95030 1 Jennifer Armer From: Nicole Lanvin <nlanvin@hotmail.com> Sent Friday, July 29, 2016 2:56 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Re: Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Re: Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 I am a resident of Los Gatos (owner of 18 ciifton ave, los gatos) and in opposition to the approval of the above cornmercial building. Traffic in our town has become nightmarish and seems to get worse every year. It seems that the proximity of the proposed building both to downtown and to hwy 17 would only add to the problem exponentially thus deteriorating life in the town that we love. My family chose to move to Los Gatos because it was one of the few cities in the South Bay that actually felt like a real "town" as opposed to living in urban sprawl. Thank you for your consideration, Nicole Levy 415-497-2773 i Jennifer Armer From: arun venkatesan <arun.venkatesan@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:0S PM To: Planning; Jennifer Armer Subject: Strongly oppose the proposed 93K sq ft Office Building between Hwy 17 & Los Gatos Blvd. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello, A 93K sq ft Office Building is proposed between Hwy 17 & Los Gatos Blvd. It will generate more traffic than the recently denied North 40 proposed residential development. Our roads are already way too congested and the developer has vastly under -stated the limit of traffic & congestion it can add to Los Gatos. This affects everyone in the area who lives in LG and travels on Hwy-9. I would like to STRONGLY OPPOSE this application. -Thanks Arun i Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: Hwy 9 project From: Karen Kurtz [mailto:kurtzk@acomcast.net] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 12:16 PM To: Planning Subject: Hwy 9 project encourage you to say no to this humongous project. Much too large of a building to put in this location with traffic congestion already bad in this area and our town. And, with only one way for all the residents to get out in case of a fire or earthquake!! Something needs to change about that. I think it is a time to enforce a building moratorium of some kind until we can get a proper plan in place and working for our traffic congestion. I chose Los Gatos to live in 1967 because it was out and away from all the congestion. I'm sadly looking at other places to move to now. It is too much congestion. I don't want to leave a town I love but it has not only grown too large, it is too expensive with no place for healthy seniors to live affordably. I'm not ready for the Meadows or the Terraces. I encourage you to please work on helping your long time senior residents with an affordable community where we can still be active & enjoy life. I don't want to live near any major Highways, Freeways, Streets or on ramps either like the North 40 project. Major health issues are created with that kind of environment. It is time to stop and seriously work through & correct the current traffic before building any more large business/housing projects. Keep this current project at Hwy 9 small! Thank you, thank you, K r rein, I ram. Jennifer Armer To: Planning; arun venkatesan Subject: RE: Strongly oppose the proposed 93K sq ft Office Building between Hwy 17 & Los Gatos Blvd. From: arun venkatesan fmailto:arun.venkatesan@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:05 PM To: Planning; Jennifer Armer Subject: Strongly oppose the proposed 93K sq ft Office Building between Hwy 17 & Los Gatos Blvd. Hello, A 93K sq ft Office Building is proposed between Hwy 17 & Los Gatos Blvd. It will generate more traffic than the recently denied North 40 proposed residential development. Our roads are already way too congested and the developer has vastly under -stated the limit of traffic & congestion it can add to Los Gatos. This affects everyone in the area who lives in LG and travels on Hwy-9. I would like to STRONGLY OPPOSE this application. -Thanks Arun i Jennifer Armer From: Jean Francisco <jeanfrancisco23@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 11:15 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 401-405 Alberto Way Proposed Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Jennifer, I am resident of Los Gatos Commons Unit 159 and would like to express a few concerns about the 401- 405 project. My unit faces the front drive right at the entry point and so I frequently observe emergency vehicles entering the drive (others are going to the back of the complex so these I do not see). As we are a senior community this is expected and becomes a concern for accessibility during and after construction of this new proposed project. I urge serious consideration of our safety. It is bad enough they we have only one entrance/exit in case of a natural disaster or evacuation. Construction on the motel corner was on going and challenging but we made it through. This project present a much larger challenge which we again will be impacted. Please give traffic, dust and dirt, road closures, and the like serious consideration in the approval of this project. I am for progress but when truncated streets are involved, we need to be considered seriously. Looking forward to seeing our concerns taken seriously and included in final approved plans. Thank you, Jean Francisco 453 Alberto Way #159 408-402-3355 1 Jennifer Armer From: Joan K Larson <joanklarson@aoLcom> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 11:39 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 401-409 Alberto Way Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Planning Commission: I am very concerned about the proposed construction of the complex at 401-409 Alberta Way. The fact that there is only one outlet and entrance to the road will cause many problems not only during the construction time. The huge under ground parking includes more traffic than the intersection will handle efficiently even after the completion of the complex. And any emergency vehicles may be delayed too long. Who knows who will be renters in that complex ---so a traffic study is only a guess as to the timing. The roads are heavily crowded now. Why add this much more traffic! Sincerely, Joan K Larson 441 Alberta Way #114 Los Gatos, CA 95032-5431 Sent from my iPhone i Jennifer Armer From: harry motro <harrymotro@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 1:26 PM To: Planning; Jennifer Armer; Harry Motro; Caro! ICE Motro Subject: Obmection to 401 & 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Town of Los Gatos Planners, 1 am writing to protest the 93K sq ft Office Building that is proposed between Hwy 17 & Los Gatos Blvd. Re: Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 It will generate more traffic than the recently denied North 40 proposed residential development. Our roads are already way too congested and the developer has vastly under -stated the limit of traffic & congestion it can add to Los Gatos. My wife and I live on Pine Avenue in Los Gatos and this will affect us when we travel on Hwy-9, Please do not approve this. Sincerely, Harry and Carol Motro 17161 Pine Ave, Los Gatos 95032 Harry Motro, Psy.D., Marriage and Family Therapist, T.C. CA License MFC 53452 Mobile: +1 408 823 2822 ::: www.harrymotro.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and attachments of any) are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete it without further review, disclosure, or copying. Thank you. 1 Jennifer Armer From: thomas bloink <jenbloink@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 7:50 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Proposed Office Building Between Hwy 9 and LG Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged NO. This is a BAD idea. Jennifer Armer From: David Garnett <davidngarnett@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 12:02 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 401-405 Alberto Way Proposed Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Ms. Amer, I am a resident of the Los Gatos Commons senior resident complex at 449 Alberto Way. I am adamantly opposed to the proposed development planed for 401-405 Alberto Way: • Traffic congestion and density issues: o Traffic added by construction related vehicles during construction would impede emergency vehicles from getting to and leaving the Commons. Unfortunately, residents at our complex often require such aid. o Vehicle traffic going to and corning from the huge business complex after completion of the project would also impede emergency vehicles from getting to and leaving the Commons. o In an emergency that requires evacuation our residents would find it difficult or impossible to evacuate in a timely manner. o Similarly, ordinary and urgent vehicle trips by our residents would be hindered. • Construction vehicles are notorious for the excessive amount of noise and air pollution they issue. Such air and noise pollution would have significant negative health impacts for our residents, many of whom have respiratory health or other health issues. • This project does not suit the scale and rhythm of our neighborhood, which is dominated by our senior residednt complex. There are also several other residential complexes on our block. Having a large business complex at the head of the street does not comply with the Los Gatos 2020 Town Plan which calls for the harmonious blending of new and old. This planned project is the essence of disharmony! Regards, David N Garnett t Jennifer Armer From: Doralyn Stephenson <budoristeph@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 4:52 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Planned Development at 401-409 Alberto Way Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Ms. Armer, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Proposed Development Project at 401-409 Alberto Way. My husband and I have been residents here in Los Gatos Commons for a period of 10 years in a condominium owned by our daughter Cynthia McMahon and son-in-law Terrence McMahon. As you know, the Commons is a senior community. My husband is 87 years old and I am 86. There are many residents here that are well into their 90's and one that is 102. My concern is that emergency vehicles will not be able to respond in a timely fashion if called during peak traffic hours.. I know first hand how important this response time is as my husband recently suffered a stroke. I was very happy to see the faces of our wonderful responders as I sat alone with him in the bathroom, phone in one hand and trying to keep him upright until help could arrive. I have witnessed many times over the years when the paramedics have had to be called for other residents. The response time is crucial to survival in many cases. In addition I have many other concerns. As you are aware, the Town of Los Gatos is experiencing a traffic CRISIS already. There are some times that it is necessary to wait for 2 changes of the light to get through the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd. Even then, motorist on Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd. pass through the light and stop partially in the intersection, or go through the intersection and stop partially in it because traffic between Los Gatos Blvd is backed up to Alberto Way waiting for the light on the Blvd to change and allow them to move on. Adding the additional traffic that the proposed project will generate will only exacerbate the traffic congestion down Los Gatos - Saratoga Rd. in both direction Alberto Way is a narrow street with parking allowed on both sides of the street, making it difficult for cars to pass if they meet coming from opposite directions. This is a land locked area with the only entrance and access being the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos-Sartoga Rd. Allowing increased density will affect not only Alberto Way and the residents here, but also will affect traffic both ways on Los Gatos Saratoga Rd. and the traffic on University, Santa Cruz Ave, Winchester Blvd. and Los Gatos Blvd, which is already problematic. This project does not seem to be in harmony with existing land use. The project will take a long time to complete and offer blocked roads, noise and pollution to the existing residents. Thank you for your attention to my concerns. Sincerely, Doralyn Stephenson 449 Alberto Way, Unit C-139 Jennifer Armer From: Terry McMahon <tenymcm@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 6:05 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Mr.,and,Mrs. Stephenson Stephenson; Planning; John Mittelstet;: Cindie McMahon Subject: Fwd: Objections to Project 401-409 Alberto Way FIR Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Ms. Armer, I am re -sending my email to you of June 13, 2016 relating to Project 401-409 Alberto Way. I wanted to make sure my comments will be available to you and the Planning Commission. Thank you and the Planning for your consideration of these most important issues and the adverse impact that the currently proposed project will have on The Commons and the neighborhood. Sincerely, Terry McMahon 408-605-5089 From: Terry McMahon <terrvmcm@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Objections to Project 401-409 Alberto Way EIR Date: June 13, 2016 at 7:29:59 AM HST To: Jennifer Ammer <JArmer(ciosgatosca.gov> Cc: Planning <Planninq(a�Iosciatosca.gov>, "raymond.toney2@averizon.net" <raymond.toney2 c@x verizon.net>, Cindie McMahon <cindiemaccomcast.net>, "Mr.,and,Mrs. Stephenson Stephenson" <Budoristeph@comcast.net> Dear Jennifer, Thank you for confirming receipt of our objections. We are deeply concerned about the dangers to the Alberto Way community that this project clearly presents. We greatly appreciate the consideration of our comments by you and the Planning Commission. Best Regards, Terry McMahon On Jun 13, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Jennifer Ammer <JArmer@a,losgatosca.gov> wrote: Hello Terrence and Cynthia, Thank you for your email regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 401 to 409 Alberto Way development project. Your comments will be added to the written comments on the DEIR which are being accepted i 1) This project TRIPLES the amount of commercial square footage on this parcel. 2) This project adds under ground parking with a huge total of 390 parking spaces, a substantial increase. 3) Alberto Way is already a narrow street, that with allowed parking on both sides, is so restricted that moving vehicles traveling in opposite directions can barely pass, if at all. The project's drastic increase in traffic will make passage and access to Highway 9 near impossible. 4)This large project creates a very DANGEROUS situation for Los Gatos senior citizens. With the use and parking density increases of this project, emergency vehicles will have an impossible task of serving the needs and gaining access to The Los Gatos Commons where hundreds elderly Los Gatos citizens have lived for years. The needs of our senior citizens appear to have been over looked. This development creates a situation ripe for a medical disaster for our seniors. 5) Alberto Way is dead end, single access point street that is the only access to The Commons and all the other residents in this already very dense area. This project geometrically increases all the critical access problems to the entire Alberto Way community. Please do not allow this project to endanger the citizens already living on and around Alberto Way. Sincerely, Terrence P. and Cynthia L. McMahon 15237 Alma Jo Court Monte Sereno, California 95030 Owners of Unit C139 449 Alberto Way Los Gatos, California 95032 3 Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: Architecture and Site Application 5-16-001 From: Claudia Dencker[mailto:claudia@mariposaartbooks.com] Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 7:09 PM To: Planning Cc: 'John Nerness'; 'Claudia Dencker' Subject: Architecture and Site Application S-16-001 Dear Planning Commission, July 31, 2016 We are writing in response to a notice we received in the mail regarding property, APN 529-06-025, Architecture and Site Application S-16-001. My husband and I own the property 428 University that abuts this property on the backside. We are writing to express our concern regarding the variance waiver that was granted. Our property is on a hill and the property on 477 Wraight Avenue was scoured fiat. This has resulted in a 3' foot drop between the two properties with our portion of the hill held back by a retaining wall. This retaining wall in the past has been problematic. In fact the retaining wall that is currently in place is the 3rd iteration since we've owned the property. We are gravely concerned about the proposed reconstruction for the following reasons: • The poles show a 2' distance between garage structure and retaining wall. Furthermore we believe that the retaining wall has an "L" shape footing. The proposed construction is much too dose and would undermine the wall footings during construction. • Retaining walls don't last forever. Repair and a redo will be complicated if the only space to work is 2'; as such it will be difficult / impossible to duplicate the strength and longevity of the current wall. We request that the property line variance waiver be rescinded. Furthermore we request that the garage remain in its current location so that open access for heavy equipment to the retaining wall can be maintained. Thank you for your time and consideration of our requests. Kind regards, Jennifer Armer From: Denny Alff <dennya&ff@o icloud.com> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 10:19 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Re 401-409 Alberto Way Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Ms. Armer, We are residents of the Los Gatos Commons, a senior condo residence on Alberto Way. We STRONGLY renounce the planned commercial development on the corner of Alberto Way and Hiway 9. It would truly be a disaster for our residential peaceful and amazingly quiet ( considering proximity to Hiway 17) way of life. The ease of passage onto/exiting Alberto Way would be seriously compromised, particularly during two years of construction. During this construction time i can only imagine the noise generated into the neighborhood. Truly awful. We have many residents here who have daytime caregivers. Their ability to evacuate their charges would be seriously compromised if an emergency were to occur. Again, that scenario is almost unimaginable , considering the 390 parked cars planned for this new construction. Please, please give this your most serious consideration when contemplating approval for this project. We will be at the meeting, - all of us, in force ----on the evening of August loth. See you then! Sincerely, Denny Alff Unit D152 Sent from my iPhone Jennifer Armer From: Raymond Toney <raymond.toney2@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 1:20 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, Ca. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Ms. Armer. In opposition to the above noted project, I bring to the town's attention, a flaw in the design of the parking set-up. The 401-409 design has 360 underground parking spaces with only ONE egress and ingress opening onto a single two lane street, Alberto Way. A far better plan is the Safeway building in downtown Los Gatos which has only 122 underground parking spaces with in and out access onto TWO wider streets. The Safeway design is far better, safer and less intrusive than 401-409 emptying, into this small residential street. 401-409 will add a lot of traffic into the town when the tenants arrive, leave to go to lunch at midday, return from lunch and leave again at close of workday. Thank you for your interest. Raymond M. Toney, 453 Alberto Way, #241, Los Gatos, CA. 1 Jennifer Armer From: Anita Beahm <anita@beahmdesigns.com> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 1:36 PM To: Planning Cc: Jennifer Armer Subject: 93K so ft Office Building - Enough is Enough! Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Sir/Madame, I'm emailing to object strongly to the plan for this office space to move forward. Los Gatos is already congested beyond belief. Los Gatos is a small town with limited in/out traffic options where development proposals should be considered very carefully. This property could ruin the already declining character of the town and quality of life for the citizens within. Anita Beahm 408-489-1396 Jennifer Armer From: Marina Shorina <marina_shorina@mail.ru> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 2:05 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Planning Subject: Please stop 401-409 Alberto Way project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Jennifer, I hope what you stop the project for the following reasons: 1. The construction will negatively impact our health. 2. Increased number of the cars will result in noise, dust and traffic jams getting increased too and that will lead to degrading of ecological environment in our area. 3. Going to and from the school will become unsafe for the kids. 4. During construction there will be issues with internet, electricity and water. 5. I think it's wrong that concrete building will be obstructing the beautiful view of the mountains. I would like to live in safe, quite place, with the clean air and quick access to HWY 17. This area is not an industrial area, there are families with the children, who live here. To conclude, I think that construction of the new buildings should be banned. Sincerely yours, Marina Shorina, Pueblo de Los Gatos i Date: June 30, 2015 From: Harold Vitale To: Jennifer T. Armer Community Development Department 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, CA 95030 RECEIVED AUG 01 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Dear Jennifer, I am a resident unit owner in Los Gatos Commons at 451 Alberto Way Unit 151. I am writing you to express my concerns regarding the proposed new office building at 401 Alberto Way. I strongly urge the Community Development Department of Los Gatos to not approve the proposed development. My primary reasons are listed below: 1.0 The Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by the City is modeled to only include traffic flow after the new building is completed and being used. It does not include any consideration of traffic flow during the construction phase when it is reasonable to expect periods of high traffic density, i.e. heavy & light construction equipment along with transporting of building materials. In addition the traffic of construction personnel is bound to cause additional traffic entry/exit delays for our residents. 2.0 I believe construction is estimated to take on the order of 2 years. This is a long time for the elderly residents of Los Gatos Commons to be subjected to increased negative impact to their way of life. During the construction phase there will also be significant noise and air pollution, a hindrance to our citizens health. This is a community of elderly citizens and we should be finding ways to improve their way of life not adding difficulties to their way of life. 3.0 My understanding is the proposed building will be for business offices. It is very likely that many of the businesses will have clients and other services for which parking is required. Besides parking, this will increase the flow of traffic in and out of the 401 Alberto Way property. I do not believe this has been treated in the Transportation Impact Analysis. What will the impact be? 4.0 Others have written to you expressing their concerns regarding impeded traffic for Emergency Vehicles and if ever necessary, Emergency evacuation. There could be many persons at risk of reaching safety in the event of most Emergencies and definitely so in the event of Evacuation. In my opinion there could be serious congestion of vehicles attempting to exit or enter this area. 5.0 Having read the Transportation Impact Analysis I am concerned about the real- time duration of peak delays whereas the analysis results are given in terms of average delays over 2 hour intervals. My concern is that a calculated average smooths out the peaks and valleys in the real time data. I feel this understates the impact. I would like to know what the 5 largest delays and 5 smallest delays are as well as the average for the various intersection wait delays_ Can you provide that to me? Thanks in advance for reading my letter and the letters of others in our community. Please read and carefully consider the petition from our Los Gatos Commons residents and please listen to our voices at the Public Hearing on August 10, 2016 and finally, please do not approve the proposed property development. Best Regards, Harold Vitale 74/)A, 7pytixwilm .6( ,---pr-4-12- 44-1:L-wuly /2(przie),1&_diz. RECEIVED AUG 3 - 20i6 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING O!';S!ON or/06 41. ,; � :;-Ok: I I Tom"' l h� e. cc C C 11 -e_ cepyo m7 I )-\\\ S \f9 0' kAiv-, v-t TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION 4101 Dr. Loretta Fowler 451 Alberto Way, #247 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Planning Commission Los Gatos, CA July 29, 2016 Dear Commission members, I live in the Los Gatos Commons, a condo complex restricted to senior citizens. We have many people living here who are in their 80s, 90s, and one or two over 100 and who are ill or disabled. Our residents frequently use ambulances or other transport for medical care. The proposed project at 401-409 Alberto Way would create traffic congestion and delay that would put us Commons residents at risk. I strongly oppose this project. There apparently has been no assessment of the impact of the proposed project on emergency vehicles. The traffic study evaluates the general impact of the project by using projected figures. These figures are not based on actual data and do not reflect conditions in Los Gatos. The traffic study, believe, underestimates not only the inconvenience but also the threat to our health and safety. In an emergency situation (a gas leak, fire, flood, etc.) all the residents on Alberto Way would be at terrible risk. There is only one exit out of the Alberto Way cul de sac. Several businesses, offices, and four residential developments have to use that one exit to evacuate currently. An additional 390 cars from the proposed project would have a disastrous result in an emergency. I also strongly feel that this proposed huge structure would be incompatible with the character of the neighborhood and the natural setting. Traffic congestion in Los Gatos already interferes with the quality of life and an additional 390 cars entering and leaving the town would make the situation considerably worse. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ,,,)4?eg.•34/C-- Loretta Fowler RECEIVED AUG 01 7016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION July 29, 2016 Jennifer Armer Community Development Department 110 E Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Community Development Department, RECEIVED JUL2 9 2916 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION My name is Marilyn Basham, a resident of 439 Alberto Way. I have been a resident of Los Gatos since 1982. I own a business property on Oak Meadow Drive so I know the importance of business to Los Gatos to maintain our quality of life. The business development proposed at 401-405 Alberto Way is not in keeping with that quality and does not harmonize with the existing residential neighborhood. I am deeply opposed to the proposed development as it is OUT OF SCALE and PROPORTION to the quiet residential senior predominate neighborhood. We have tolerated the business parks on both ends of our street for years because they have been low density and low traffic impact. This proposal will triple the density and significantly increase traffic congestion on a short narrow DEAD END street! The density of the proposed development does not blend with the needs of its' senior residents who often need quick assess to emergency vehicles and safe evacuation routes. Again this is a DEAD END street! There are in addition some unanswered questions: Why were the recent study projections of the traffic based on data obtained elsewhere? How can the Fire Dept. sign off on this hugely increased density of people and traffic on a DEAD END street? What is the stability implications of digging so deep into a designated "LIQUEFACTION ZONE" ?, what about the stability of the overpass of Highway 9 and 17 and adjacent properties? Has the town of Los Gatos ever approved a DEEP TWO LEVEL UNDERGROUND GARAGE WITH ONLY ONE EXIT? Please consider the valid health and safety concerns of the senior citizen who already live on Alberto Way and bring this project back into proportion and scale of the existing business park. Thank You, Marilyn Basham Jennifer Armer From: Betsy Sickler <betsysickler@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 10:40 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 401-405 Alberto Way Ms Armer, 1 am a 78 year old resident of the Commons on Alberto Way and am 100% opposed to the proposed development for 401-405 Alberto Way. As you probably know the Commons' residents need to be 55 or over to reside here. The majority are elderly and many have serious medical conditions which require multiple trips to doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, etc. Alberto Way is a short 2 way street with only one way out and has lots of street parking due to lack of more available space for residents. We do NOT need more vehicles on our street let alone 390 of them, The traffic would be deplorable. And what about the emergency vehicles that frequent the Commons. 1 understand this development would take 2 years to complete. All this time during the demolition and construction we would be exposed to air and noise pollution neither of which are conducive to a healthy life style especially for seniors. The traffic in Los Gatos has become a real problem. There are only 3 ways I can get home and the other weekend 1 tried all 3 and it still took 25-30 minutes to get here from only a short distance away. I couldn't get home in the case of an emergency. Please, please take all of this into consideration as the LP Acquisitions, LLC is attempting to get permission for this development. Thank you for your time. Betsy Sickler Sent from my iPad -tiLat -». , caA,,4) ILL) i( L - L__Ak-j \A-tALL,/ -L 2-« 510/-4 o " .c cv4.e To the Town of Los Gatos from local residents who oppose the Architectural & Site Application S-15-056. Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009, Environmental Impact Report EIR- 16-001. RECEIVED Overview AUG 04 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS • Summary of concerns and objections to demolish three existing offi NNUNG DIVISIONbuildings and construct two new, two-story office buildings with underground parking at 401-409 Alberto Way. • Detailed study & report authored by Bob Burke showing why this proposed development does not conform to the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. • Signed petition from local residents opposing Architectural & Site Application $-15-056 and Conditfional Use permit U-1S-009. Concerns Size . Mass. Bulk. and Height of Building The proposed buildings are >3 times the size of what's there now (93,000 sq. ft. vs. 30,000) It's height is taller than any other structures in the area, and compared to the residential buildings in the area and it does not fit into the neighborhood. In addition it will take away about a dozen parking spaces on the street currently used by residents and their guests. Furthermore, we were told the number of employees the buildings can hold is 350. In reality, they are capable of holding up up to 735 with high tech companies' bull pen seating layouts. The Proposed development also removes many large mature trees & bushes, then replaces them with small ones. The buildings will obstruct the view of the mountains and sunsets for the residents (which is one of the beautiful things to look forward to at the end of day), and is incompatible with the neighborhood. Also, many of the residents in the front of the condominiums on the street have home offices. The construction noise and disruption will make it impossible to work. Therefore the proposed development is incompatible with the character of the neighborhood and transforms it from a low impact residential bedroom community in an open space tucked away in a wooded area to a "concrete & glass jungle" dominated by a large commercial space. Reij!cQd property value Big commercial building (with all the problems described above) in the closest proximity will change our status of desired cul-de-sac area and will reduce our property values. This will be especially pronounced for those owners with views today. Safety Issues: Children and Elderly With new traffic turning left to Alberto and left again into proposed new building - it will become difficult and possibly unsafe for children to cross Alberto on the way to school. Children cannot cross Alberto Way from stop light since cars are speeding to Alberto Oaks during morning and evening commute time. With potentially 325-700 new vehicles to turn trying onto Alberto in the AM Rush, , children & elderly are endangered crossing either Alberto or Hwy-9 at the signal light. Large construction truck drivers could possibly not see small children in front of them. And Alberto way does not have any other stoplight to cross at 1 Traffic issues Approval of the application will foreclose the possibility of renovation or replacing the Hw-17 & Hwy-9 Intersection leaving Los Gatos with permanent congestion. The Intersectionneeds renovation or replacement before approval. Having a new 93,000 Sq Ft commercial building in addition to existing new restaurant, healthcare facility ,Best Western inn, Alberto Oaks Office Park and four residential condominium complexes on a two lane road will significantly increase the congestion of traffic considering that there is only one way in and out on our street. Waiting times at the light will be several times increased both in and out of Alberto Way. This will also cause reduced air quality as many cars idling at the red light or rushing on yellow will produce additional emissions to the air we breathe. Increased traffic compromises security and safety (during the construction phase and after completion) During construction there will be sidewalk closures, so residents, (families, children, seniors), will have to use the road to walk on to go to and from school or downtown. Many cars entering and exiting the new buildings will impose additional safety risks for all that pass the building, which is the only way out. In addition we all have Health issue concerns because of 16-18 months of Noise, Dust, and Pollution during construction phase. (..„1,c4-zo 5 j iz er 110/- •f7f013vflgrry mfo 5E-b 5 c-746'? q7---1(3er/Q11, 140t- Lioq \Joh-tit. {-,4v vvPD Contents 1. These Comments are from Residents and Members of these HOAs: 2 II. Qualifications - Bob Burke, Author 2 Ill. The PD does not Conform to the Town of LG 2020 General Plan 2 2020 General Plan Section 2: Vision 2 2020 General Plan Section 3: Land Use 3 2020 General Plan Section 4 Community Design Element 4 LP Acquisitions, LLC Illustration of the PD's Buildings is misleading 5 Actual View of the PD from the Northeast with Story Poles 6 2020 General Plan Section 6: Transportation 6 The PD's Transportation Impact Analysis contains Errors, Understates Trip Generation and is Missing Material Info 6 The traffic Report clearly shows evidence that any Development in Los Gatos worsens already bad Hwy 17 Congestion 8 The Traffic Study as filed contains errors, omissions & data too old to use 9 Existing Traffic Error in PD Traffic Analysis: Alberto Way & Hwy-9 11 The PD Traffic Analysis describes the present EB Hwy-9 AM Rush gridlock: 12 Raw Traffic Data Files from the May 12, 2015 Study have been deleted and are no longer available for scrutiny14 Changes need to be made to the Hwys-17 & 9 Intersection to prevent Gridlock .... 14 Approval means LG & Caltrans pay for Changes to the CA9 & CA17 Interchange 15 Sensitivity Study elements that need to be added 16 LP Acquisition LLC understates Traffic by presenting only the fewest employees and longest rush period....._... 16 Office Space Layout 1 — 401-405 Alberto Rd = 735 employees with a highly "Efficient Custom" layout. 18 Office Space Layout 2 — 401-405 Alberto Rd r 505 employees with an "Efficient Rule of Thumb" layout. 19 Office Space Layout 3 — 401-405 Alberto Rd - 425 employees with a "Typical Rule of Thumb" layout 19 Office Space Layout 4 — 401-405 Alberto Rd - 375 employees: "Spacious Rule of Thumb" layout 19 Trip Count Sensitivity Study 20 Traffic into and out of the PD Garage will increase AM Hwy-9 Spillback that extends to University 20 The PD Garage will cause intolerable AM & PM Congestion on Alberto Way 21 2020 General Plan Section 9 Environment And Sustainability Element 21 2020 General Plan Section 10 Noise Element 21 IV. Conclusion: Please deny the Application 21 i. These Comments are from Residents and Members of these H As: - Pueblo de Los Gatos (53 Units at 420 Alberto Way) directly across from the Proposed Development (PD) - The Commons (110 Units at 445 Alberto Way) - Bella Vista (47 Townhomes in Bella Vista, just past 240 Alberto Way) Las Casitas #4 (18 Townhomes at 435 Alberto Way) II. Qualifications - Bob Burke, Author BS-EE, MS-EE & MBA Waiting Line Theory and Traffic Engineering education both formal and on-the-job Electronic Network Traffic Engineering Current and Past High Tech Employers: AT&T, Cincinnati Bell, AVAYA, Alcatel -Lucent, Cisco, NETGEAR US Patents: 3 in Broadband Networking and three in Software Defined Networking, Content Distribution & Control Product Management - Networking Systems Four decades hi Network Engineering Community Organizer for Water Proceedings at CPUC (volunteer) Former HOA President and Board Member (volunteer) Former Mutual Water Co Officer & Board Member (volunteer) III. The PD does not Conform to the Town of LG 2020 General Plan In each section below, we describe why. The Present Application cannot be approved. 2020 General Plan Section 2: Vision m Foster a pedestrian -oriented community with a small-town character; Alberto Way has two commercial properties at its intersection with Hwy-9 presently and one at the end. We have constant traffic issues with the speed of vehicles to and from the commercial property at the end. The principal problem is that the curve between 420 and 401-409 +435 limits sight. When limited sight is combined with speed, there are frequent near misses. Residents from Alberto Way frequently walk to Town and must cross two dangerous Hwy 17 exit ramps. Foliage severely limits visibility to pedestrians and drivers, who cannot see pedestrians until they're within unsafe stopping distance. There is no Hwy 17 exit ramp accident record described within the EIR. The increased vehicular traffic generated by the PD disrupts our pedestrian use of both Hwy-9 and Alberto Way. We have a large population of children and seniors. There is no alternate Pedestrian or vehicular exit from Alberto way. 2)Page • Furthermore, the Proposed Development (PD) contains no provisions to address the disruption from higher vehicular • traffic volume after completion nor the purported 15-16 month construction disruption. e Be a full -service community that is also environmentally sensitive; The increased vehicular traffic during and after construction will bring increased air pollution to Alberto Way. The construction itself will bring an increased level of air -borne allergens. 2020 Genera) Plan Section 3: Land Use *The mandates of the Safety Element are reflected in the designation and location of land use, the permitted activities within designated areas, and the patterns of land use that support defensible space, the Town's contingency plan, and fire and other hazard mitigation. As noted our Vision comments, Pedestrian Safety is compromised both during construction since it blocks our use of the sidewalk in front of 401-409 and after occupancy with the increased danger to pedestrians from the additional traffic it generates. The PD contains no design element to address the dangers it generates to pedestrian safety. • Air quality is improved by land use patterns that minimize vehicle travel within the Town. The PD degrades air quality via the increased vehicular traffic it generates, a special threat to our seniors and children + The Conservation Element goals address protecting and enhancing the natural environment. Programs that retain natural features such as tree preservation, limited grading, and water conservation maintain the natural character of Los Gatos. The PD removes many large mature trees & bushes, then replaces them with small ones. e The Open Space Element refers to the location, character, and use of parks, recreational facilities, and preserved, unimproved land. The PD contains no significant open space that can be used recreationally by the public despite using about 1 of the 2+ acres for buildings. 4 Distribution, location, and extent of land uses for categories of public or private uses. Such categories include, but are not limited to housing, business, industry, open space, natural resources, recreation and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, and public buildings and grounds. 31Pg e "The PD is so high that it destroys the scenic beauty enjoyed by Alberto Way Residents, our Visitors, Best Western Guests and employees of the local businesses. Particularly hard hit are the 420 Alberto Way owners and residents whose "View Unit Condos" face Alberto Way; are along 420's South drive near Alberto Way; or are along the west side of 420's North Drive. All of these "View Units" have scenic, sunlit views today that the PD would, if built, remove. This situation also occurs at 435 Alberto where the PD not only blocks the N. building's scenic sunlit views but also affords PD's 2nd floor Tenants a view into their children's bedrooms. This will depress the market value of the "View Units," for which the PD does not propose to compensate owners. The PD furthermore attempts to remove about a dozen of "our" on -street parking spaces and LP Acquisitions, LLP declines in meetings with us to provide any substitute parking to Alberto Way Residents. We already have on -street parking congestion, which was made worse by the addition of Grill 57. All but 2 of 420 & 435 Alberto Way's Visitors and many of their Residents use on -street parking: the on -street parking was a design feature f Alberto Way. • Population density and building intensity standards for land use designations The PDs buildings are massive compared to what's there now and to the residential buildings in the area. Furthermore, LP Acquisitions, LLP understates the number of employees the buildings can hold at 350. in reality, they are capable of holding up to 746 and high tech companies are converting to the "bull pen" seating designs that allow this maximum number. The PD is therefore incompatible with the character of the Neighborhood and transform it from a low impact residential community in an open space tucked away in a wooded area to a "concrete & glass jungle" dominated by a large commercial space. 2020 General Plan Section 4 Community Design Element The Town Council & Planning Commission would have heard a lot more from Alberto Way residents had LP Acquisitions, LLC Development presented us with a rendering that was representative of the actual proposed structure earlier this year when it held the first round of community meetings. The PD does not conform to these Town of LG Policies: Policy CD-1.1 Building elements shall be in proportion with those traditionally in the neighborhood. At 93,000 sq. ft., the PDs buildings are massive compared to what's on the site now and what's in the neighborhood. They are further proposed to be built so high that they deny us continued enjoyment of the neighborhood's mountain views and depress property values in 420 Alberto Way's "View Units." Wage " The Proposed Development (PD) is furthermore a significant departure from many of the Town's 2020 General Plan goals, specifically: Policy CD-1.2 New structures, remodels, landscapes, and hardscapes shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area. Policy CD-1.4 Development on all elevations shall be of high quality design and construction, a positive addition to and compatible with the Town's ambiance. Development shall enhance the character and unique identity of existing commercial and/or residential neighborhoods. At the First community meeting, we were told by LP Acquisitions, LLC, in detail, that the largest structure would be about 5 feet taller than the current 2 story building on the back side of the main parking lot to the business complex. We were also told that the building adjacent to that building, on the Left side/HWY 9 side of the lot, would be added onto to meet the height of the other building. What has been showcased is multiple large structures, with one towering above them all up front on the street side, in addition to structures also scattered across the second lot on the "backside" of the main complex. This will be a headache, an eyesore and a safety hazard, amongst other things. Not until the Story Poles went up immediately across the street, did we, the residents of 420 Alberto Way, realize how far from "harmony and blending the LP Acquisitions, LLC illustration actually is. LP Acquisitions, LLC Illustration of the PD's Buildings is misleading • While LP Acquisitions, LLC accurately disclosed the construction as —93K square feet, this illustration, both shown to us as a large graphic in the first meeting that LP Acquisitions, LLC called and placed on its web site is so far from an accurate depiction that we consider it to be intentional deception. The structure that they have demonstrated with the Wage story poles is not at all what was communicated to those of us who attended the initial Open House and town meeting last year... they have pulled what we consider a classic "bait and switch." The PD is massive, would dominate the neighborhood, destroy our pleasant residential setting and our view. Here is the present Story Pole View taken as 3 photos showing the PD buildings: First photo shows the left side and the second photo is the right side of 401-409 Alberto from 420 Alberto, across the street. Actual View of the PD from the Northeast with Story Poles 2020 General Plan Section 6: Transportation The PD's Transportation Impact Analysis contains Errors, Understates Trip Generation and is Missing Material Info The PD can generate 4x-8x the Peak Vehicle Traffic vs. LP Acquisitions, LLC's Traffic Report and LP Acquisitions, LLC shows no sensitivity traffic study 0 Roadway System and Standards: Definitions and descriptions of the types of roadways and service standards for Los Gatos. The PD's traffic study incorrectly illustrates the Peak Traffic (Jams) at the Alberto Way & Hwy 9 Intersection. This is discussed below. • Existing Transportation Conditions: A description of traffic operations in Los Gatos. The PD contains no Peak Period vehicle flow chart for the intersection of Hyw-17 & Hwy-9 and fails to show the Full Peak Period traffic count at Hwy-9 & Alberto, either as a result or deliberately in combination. This is a condition of great importance in the PDs approval. The Alberto & HWY-9 intersection, as well as Hwy-9 intersections with LGB, Hwy-17, University and Santa Cruz are plagued with traffic jams in both Am and PM Rush Periods. This is discussed below. 6(Pe Other Transportation Networks and Facilities: Descriptions of bikeways and trails, truck routes, rail, bus, paratransit, parking facilities, and pedestrian facilities. The PD proposes no addition to the trailway system, which it could, to improve pedestrian passage over Hwy-17. Furthermore, the current Hwy-17 Rail replacement will, if a sidewalk is placed and used by pedestrians, still require pedestrians to cross dangerous and mostly blind freeway exits. The PD elevates Hwy-17 Traffic thereby increasing the danger to pedestrians as they cross the Hwy-17 entrance and particularly exit lanes. 4 Planned and Proposed Transportation Improvements: Descriptions of planned and proposed transportation improvements for regional and local transportation infrastructure in Los Gatos. The PD fails to note the serious implications that the absence of any Caltrans Project to renovate or replace the Hwy- 17 & Hwy-9 intersection. The traffic generated by the PD will push the Peak to unacceptable levels. The Peak , when fully calculated taking into account the ACTUAL sum of Vehicles entering the Intersection will push the Hwy-9 & Alberto intersection from its current LOS, which is not presently a "B" as mis-represented in the Traffic Analysis to an even more that fully congested level. The PD will cause Gridlock. This is fully discussed & illustrated below. The PD, if Built, will permanently disable the Hwy-17 & Hwy-9 intersection 's future replacement or renovation by Caltran due to its inordinately costly requirement to condemn, purchase and remove a significant portion of the PO, particularly the proposed 405 Alberto Way. Hwy-17 has been named one on California's most dangerous roads due to its high traffic volume and its condition . The Hwy-17 & Hwy-9 Intersection was one of the earliest freeway intersections built in the US. Designed in the late 1930's and completed circa 1941, it was part of the Hwy-17 WW-1l defense construction intended to defend us against Japanese invasion. The beaches of Monterey Bay are perfect amphibious landing zones, unlike much of the Bay area coast. Concurrent with Hwy-17's completion, all the Santa Cruz Mountain tunnels were dynamited closed to prevent the rail's use by invasion forces. The Hwy-9 & Hwy-17 Intersection is in present need of renovation to convert the single lane sections on both ends to two lanes in each direction. The PD leaves insufficient empty land to enable this with incurring extreme cost. The Town of Los Gatos must require that a renovation or replacement is completed prior to start of the PDs construction. 4 Goals, Policies, and Actions: A list of goal, policy, and action statements that are intended to improve transportation and circulation in Los Gatos. As filed by LP Acquisitions, LLC, the PD generates more Traffic than the residential apartment PD in the North 40 that was recently denied by the Planning Commission. Furthermore, LP Acquisitions, LLC misrepresented to us in community meetings that the Town of LG conducted the traffic study. Hexagon's report identified that Lamb (not LP Acquisitions, LLC) was its client, not the Town and verified this when interviewed (011ie Zhou). The traffic Report clearly shows evidence that any Development in Los Gatos worsens already bad Hwy 17 Congestion This Freeway Capacity and Level of Service grading table alone shows how bad the Los Gatos Area Hwy 17 is congested and is alone enough to prove that the Planned Development should be permanently rejected, along with all other developments in Los Gatos until Hwy 17 is widened by 1-2 lanes in each direction from %2 mile N of Hwy 85 to at least Bear Creek Rd: and its intersections is improved. Pushing either or both rush hours to worse E or F Levels of Service, which are already unacceptable, is sheer folly. Hwy-17 accidents hit their highest level in decades: http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci 28415215/crashes-highway-17-at-highest-level-decade and Los Gatos traffic is at new heights, especially when School is in session. Note how bad the Level of Service LOS) is on both sides of LG-Saratoga, Hhwy-9, on Hwy-17: The PD Traffic Analysis understates Peak trips it generates and also fails to show the full number of exits & entrances between Hwy-9 & Hwy-17 as illustrated in its Table from Page 19, Figure 7 of its' Traffic Analysis shown below after "Existing Traffic Volumes" below or the Intersection's LOS shown in its Table 4. We're stunned that this wasn't caught before now. Table 2 Freeway Segment Capacity Evaluation ter t:+.0 LineE. :Ay �Lya e Vil IT Ban C RC to s •5-S4Tre iY NC 9§i 16 2 4,4130 PO4 2 4,120 -ar: i . , ... , It SR la 1.a*A b Las Gat3'-Satitaga RI S AU 2 4,4p 1 2 440 1 . Ba6t1rtg€oas rettenicetithe Siva Cara VaTey 7 3 AL esnan rates:: RDip°►r Obentwrig sway 2O*4. 2. ftrOV.tr.ipsare estinataz 4;a erzitai lap ass9r7Trtt SV....Dtaccatn a tawirlsra tetv cse e. Furthermore, as we show in section b: the Traffic Study as submitted contains significant errors & omissions. They work to the Applicant's favor in failing to correctly present the existing traffic and the new traffic generated by the PD. Busy Period trips both existing and generated by the PD are underestimated in the report to the maximum extent possible and in reality the BH trips generated will be many times greater after the PD is occupied. This PD will adversely affect all residents in the Town of Los Gatos and its extraterrestrial community of interest which extends south to include all who reside within the LG-Saratoga HS District. The Traffic Study as filed contains errors, omissions & data too old to use Since the Traffic Study's Delay figures are far lower than those we and others we know in Los Gatos encounter, we interviewed 011ie Zhou of Hexagon on July 26 about certain aspects of the traffic report that pertain to the Avg Delay, Level of Service & Flow Counts. In community meetings, LP Acquisitions, LLC stated that the Avg Delay was for an entire day. Mr. Zhou asserts that the Avg Delay is computed for the Busy Hour (7:30-8:30AM and 5-6PM). No attempt was made to track counts within 10 to 15 minute intervals during the busy hour for use in computing Peak Average Delay. When asked what dates the traffic counts were made, Mr. Zhou represented them as May 12, 2015 for the non- CA 17 studies and that Hexagon did not perform any CA17 or CA17 entrance or exit traffic count study: the traffic data came from an August 2013 Caltrans study that was made while Los Gatos schools were not in session. This is in contrast to this statement that Lam placed in the Traffic Report: Existing Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes were obtained from new traffic counts conducted in January and May 2015, and the 2014 VTA`s CLAP TRAFFIX database. The existing traffic volumes at the study intersections include the traffic being generated by the existing buildings on the site. The existing AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown graphically on Figure 6. The traffic count data are included in Appendix A. When asked who counted the traffic on May 12, Mr Zhou represented that the traffic is counted by software that is run against the camera(s) monitoring the intersection at Alberto & CA9. Hexagon hired IDAX to do the traffic count and h software that IDAX used, however, he suspects it id Miovision. An interview with Mr. Mark Skaggs at IDAX confirms they did the job. Mr. Skaggs represented that his California Manager is out of town for the next 2 weeks and that Mr. Skaggs cannot verify if IDAX used video recording with software analysis or manual traffic counting for this job. He did confirm that they did the job. We recall seeing the rubber hose pneumatic traffic counters in the roadway at Alberto & Hwy 9 in May 2015. It was not a job done with Video Recording and Software based counting. Here are two "poster child" Errors and Outages in the PD's Traffic Analysis Looking at 3 in the following 2 diagrams, we will add the current & future vehicle counts entering & exiting Alberto Way in the AM & PM and then compare them to Table 6 below: 401 Alberto Way - Transportation impact Ana �rsis _ 4.' r4. 1' tS?I — 65613E51 1E5izg2'1 .,U. 4s. 31- 7 n ,T1— .► t�4 151 9IPage 2 bra E.,.. y) 1 1 H1 17'(;1 �`= -113 4-- 1:: _CS}j «.ar+ —Jo:>fr8:} 22{I[24?1 4") + j -gf,11 4 fi9,d31, i N� 1 ti b' 4 5 4-214;143► 25D:a)- ' - 1 kw pray �:2: --► i .11. t. 11 i1- re. � C 1 !. �'S 'Figure 6: PDs Existing Traffic Analysis on un-numbered page 14 (above) Intersections & Peak Flows; Alberto & Hwy-9 does not balance when the flows from Hwy-17 are included. The intersection of Hwy-17 & Hwy-9 is MIA from this Illustration. Its flow chart is needed to complete the study and its absence is suspicious. 401 Alberto Way - Transportation Impact Analysis N V 03 N N_ :1 4,-- '54{1581 o c� Lea Gina, i N.- ♦_. 8ti713®2 �� Gruc- " sv: �, y �. f 65j2132P : Rn a� � 1931354)-%` a ♦ 35(35) 031(T45)._ 1 II 500;1063) -, 84065) - : " 19 55(94)--4, 09 'a ea c t 179(141J 4-- 11/0;500) ;-220(243) no Cratle, Sa'an+yb 4) -4 an 70(77)- 89i1821)-- .� 22(34) -; z `- 1200) a— 960(788) 5(19) 1 (4 c.pi, u ; Ave a4. t 72(60) +-- 25(11) 219'152) 39(9)—t 9t2)-. + 31(12)--i A rte^te • F.r, iM v:� Figure 7: PDs Existing + Proposed Traffic Analysis page 19 (above) Intersections & Peak Flows: Alberto & Hwy-9 does not balance when the flows from Hwy-17 are included. The Hwy-17 & Hwy-9 is also an MIA intersection from this Illustration. Its flow chart is needed to complete the study and its absence is also suspicious. When these two Peak Hour traffic flow diagrams are viewed together on the same page with the Trip Count the PD proposes, it's clear that the PDs Traffic Analysis did not use the Peak Hour Trip Generation in its Table 6 below to assemble the "Proposed + Existing" trip count and LOS illustrations: they either erred or just made them up. Looking at AM trips into Alberto Way: Existing = 81 (69+11) and Proposed = 82 (70+12). But the added trip count is far greater in Table 6 below, which shows added Peak Trips into the PD are 130 in the AM. So based on Table 6, Proposed AM trips into Alberto Way = 211 (81 existing +130 extra) vs. the 1 added trip shown in the traffic flow diagrams in Figure 7! Likewise, Looking at PM trips exiting Alberto Way: Existing = 103 (32+71) and Proposed = 111 (75+36). But the added trip count is far greater in Table 6 below, which shows added Peak Trips into the PD are 102 in the PM. So based on Table 6, Proposed PM trips into Alberto Way = 208 (103 existing +105 extra) vs. the 8 added trips shown in the traffic flow diagrams in Figure 7! 10(Page Table 6 Trip Generation Summary hard Use Otfi ce' Existing Site Driveway Comte AM Peak Hoar PM Peak Hour D i4y na.y Size itr;il Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total 93.5 kst 11.03 1.031 1 94 159 22 181 1.96 31 152 183 30-0 kg( 11.03 (331) (29) (13) (42) (34) (47) (81) Project Trips net Driveway Counts 700 130 9 139 (3) 105 102 Notes: Al rates are from: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition 1. Land Use Code 710: General ice Building (averag rates for dailytrips, fitted curve equation tor peak hour trips, a*ressed in trips per 1,000 s-t-) 2. Ensting site driwewaycounts are based al dri►ewaycounts conducted on Mays, 2015 during both the AM (7-9 AM) and PM (4-6 PM) peak hours of commute traffic. Daily trips are estimated forecasting office use using the daily trip generation rate for General Office Building (average rates, expressed in trips per 1,000 s1-) Turning now, to the AM Eastbound Hwy-9 & Alberto Rush Hour Traffic: The Pas Traffic Analysis Table 4: (below) shows only the Hwy-17 to Hwy-9 Traffic Flows that exit Hwy-17 to Eastbound Hwy-9: the other half, EB & WB Hwy-9 to Hwy-17 are MIA from this table: The MIA traffic flows are needed to complete the traffic study and their absence is suspicious. After Table 4, we show the EB Hwy-9 AM Rush error for the Existing Traffic. Table 4 Existing Freeway Ramp Analysis 4 tois:ivt:'r :: .&i-imp • isiins Conditions i✓ca?� Ty HD CJp city' 'orirt h,r . NE -on -raw *vrn rii'€ims Gabs -Saratoga Rd Diagont b pT ' S #ram SR17&Lose. s _.. _- Saratoga Pt Na off -ramp to EB Los Gats-Sarabga Rd PM 13iagona AM PM 38 o' spt:s EB Los Gars-SHranga Lod; Rif 2030 1153 0 1017 ,379 2000 370 2003 125 O.ff� 0.03 I Bit 1 3 0,61 140 758 3 2 Notes: i. Raw a es wee ottaineki 1 n toe HighwayeapacityMarii.4 213ao, and considered the free -floss, speed. arid .11e. :raber a� tams on,the ;amp 2, Eaestny peak hour bciwnes are obt,ined ecim pp son3cornrstr ation x rth Ca t arts staff Jordan Shan on a rerr 77. 2:��'S Existing Traffic Error- in PD Traffic Analysis: Alberto Way & Hwy-9 This is an example that illustrates the point. 11jr'gc AM Rush Hour Eastbound Hwy- 9 (LGS Rd) count of vehicles arriving at the Alberto Way intersection: Existing vehicles entering the EB Hwy-9 Intersection at Alberto Way as shown in the Traffic Study's Figure 6 above, for the intersection of CA-9 & Alberto page 14 figure 6 = 796+69+22 = 887 Vs: Sum of EB Vehicles arriving at the Hwy-9 & Alberto Intersection after exiting from CA-17NB to CA-9EB + CA 17S to CA9EB shown in Table 4+Vehicles leaving University EB on CA9 from Figure 6: 379 (NB CA17 to EB9) + 1103 (SB17 to EB9) + 944 (from University) = 2,372 This is lower than present traffic since Table 6 uses the old 2013 NB & SB CA-17 to EB9 Caltrans Counts obtained from Jordan Chan 9-17-15 as stated by Hexagon's 011ie Zhou. PM Rush Hour Eastbound CA 9 (LGS Rd count of vehicles arriving at the Alberto Way intersection: Shown in the Traffic Study, for the intersection of CA-9 & Alberto figure 6 = (68+807+34) = 909 Vs: Sum of Vehicles entering the CA9EB & Alberto Intersection exiting from CA-17NB to CA-9E8 + CA 17S to CA9EB + Leaving University EB on CA9 = 125 + 758 + 1193 (leaves Univ: 35 + 1048 + 94) = 2,076 There is no Table in the report that contains the EB Hwy 9 count of vehicles leaving University that exit from HWY-9 to Hwy 17 South or North, figures that are needed to fact check the EB Hwy 9 traffic that is reported to flows from Hwy-17 to Alberto. These exits are the only missing data, a too convenient omission. This appears to be a deliberate omission. It further appears that revised pages 13 & 14 were pasted into the Appendix H Traffic Analysis without re -paginating, an observation we find suspicious and we wonder if the originals showed the much higher traffic Bows we expect based on the Hwy-17 Rush Hour Exits to Hwy-9. If the Town does not permanently reject The Proposed Development, the Traffic Study must be re -done with updated 2016 Hwy-17 freeway traffic shortly after the start of the LG local school sessions in late August / early September. The PD Traffic Analysis describes the present EB Hwy-9 AM Rush gridlock: ,41ber10 Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road During the AM peak period, heavy traffic volume was observed only on the eastbound leg of Los Gatos - Saratoga Road. There was spillback from the downstream intersection on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road at Los Gatos Boulevard. As a result, the inner eastbound through lane on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road queues to the SR 17 southbound on -ramp, and the outer eastbound through lane on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road queues onto the SR 17 northbound off -ramp. Because of the spolhack issue from Los Gatos Boulevard, the eastbound through movement on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road requires several signal cycles to clear the queue. During the PM peak period, the westbound through movement on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road receives moderate queues that extend toward the location of the Bella Vista Avenue overpass, but all clear withei one signal cycle. No other operational issues were observed. In addition to the highly errored count of EB Hwy-17 arrivals shown above, since the Eastbound Hwy-9 spillback backs up from LG Blvd to block the exit to NB Hwy-17, it means that the Level of Service at Alberto Way cannot be a "B" nor any better than LGB or Hwy-17, which is not addressed at all. Ail Los Gatos Residents who use EB Hwy-9 in the AM Rush are acutely aware of the congestion. 121Pngc E>istmg Backgrou rd Avg. Avg Peak Delay Delay y.t..... t_e: AM 47.3 Q 48.0 D PM 372 0 38.1 -UrriVersflyAvei &Los Gatos-S a AM 34.5 C -134.8 3 Alberto Way & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rcl Aril 11.2 S 11.2 12.4 6 12.8 B 22.8 ; C 23.2 PM 24.3 C 25.2 Los Gatos Blvd & Caldwell Ave/Kennedy Rd AM 37.2 D 38.8 PM 244 C 26.3 C Furthermore, LP Acquisitions, LLP fails to note in this description that CA-9 has its right hand lane blocked at each end of the HWY-17 Overpass, is one lane immediately before and after the overpass or that the PD will generate enough traffic to make the gridlock much worse during the rush period: Los Gatos -Saratoga Road (SR 9) is a four lane arterial roadway adjacent to the project site. It extends from Los Gatos Boulevard in a northwesterly direction. At the town boundary of Los Gatos and Monte Serena, it changes name to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Saratoga -Los Gatos Road transitions to Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road at the intersection of Big Basin way (which is the continuation of SR 9) and Saratoga Avenue. Los Gatos -Saratoga Road has a median that begins east of the SR 17 interchange and continues to Massol Avenue. Los Gatos -Saratoga Road forms the southern boundary of the project :rte. And with Alberto's placement on Hwy-9 between University and LG Blvd, whose LOSs are shown below from Tables 5 & 8 to be C and D respectively, the Alberto & Hwy-9 intersection is surely not a "B" LOS either "now" or "as proposed." Table 5 Background Intersection Levels of Service Summary 1 N. Santa CrtlzAve & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rti " Los Gatos Blvd & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd Notes * Denotes CttP intersection 131Page PM Taft 1 • ice, plug P t tan - 1 1 Le -Mt et t itgivierzry iiw tt410104 4 Prs ktv Piet . tWit 411 .D Lratnerni CtS''uftsr Raw Traffic Data Files from the May 12, 2015 Study have been deleted and are no longer available for scrutiny We interviewed Mr. Mark Skaggs at IDAX, the company that Hexagon hired to do the Intersection level traffic study. He said the counts may or may not have been done via video recordings and Miovision software analysis. When asked for a copy of the Videos IDAX took during the traffic count study, he disclosed that if they used video counts, they had already deleted the video files. We object to this Traffic Analysis use as a basis to even vote on this PD. The results of the Traffic Study differ so far from our daily reality for the Study to be true, especially when school is in session. Changes need to be made to the Hwys-17 & 9 Intersection to prevent Gridlock Rush traffic from the higher than shown by LP Acquisitions, LLC vehicle counts from the PD would back vehicles waiting for left turn into Alberto from EB Hwy-9 up far enough as block the current EB exits from Hwy 17 on to Hwy 9. Regardless of Left Turn Signal Timing, not all the left turners will make it into the left turn lane and they will then jam the current single lane approach, backing traffic up on N and S Hwy 17 worse than currently occurs. 'Wage Here is an illustration of how the Intersection needs to be modified: - Extend the current HWY 9 right hand lanes from between where they end at the loops Alberto to unblock the congestion the two short single lane sections cause. This allows enough room to extend the Eastbound HWY 9 left turn lane into Alberto Way - Reconfigure the Hwy-17 N to Hwy 9 diagonal so that it merges closer to the light at Alberto to allow Hwy-9 Eastbound vehicles to move around the left turners at peak rush when the extended left turn lane is filled. Extend the Hwy-17 Ramp so it enters Hwy-9 closer to Alberto. Re -configure the Hwy-17N to Hwy-9 West loop as well as the Hwy-9 West to Hwy-17N diagonal to allow Hwy-17 to Hwy-9 traffic to safely enter HWY-9 The simple red fines outline the changes. lg. [mac Loth File Ea Kew Teas —Add Heap rod-IWrrlb,i t MON I]3a1 DU N2 OZ. R) ❑.. R! ❑.& R5 ❑ S IF ❑ � R? ❑S we R une Q.". cneee ❑b TVtr.? Qs,hn.,1 ry ❑$Tail two law ♦ untam P^ee'uy 6atabeye d QQ Y>raal {' Heideis and labels h. Piece ` . ! Photos ❑=p Road. • e[S 36 Rvildn+ya - Ocean - 0tt wrothe, +' ❑Fte. GOP,/ '- ❑4e Glab.lAwa,euss ❑DW.,r " a our L..de Approval means LG & Cattrans pay for Changes to the CA9 & CA17 Interchange a • Since there are significant errors and omissions in the traffic study and no sensitivity study, approval would leave the Town of Los Gatos and Cattrans holding the bag for Infrastructure triggered by the PD should its tenants not build out to the minimalist number of employees as touted by LP Acquisitions, LLC and all future un-known or un-disclosed Traffic and in specific for the rebuild needed to the SE and SW quadrants of the CA9 - CA17 interchange when the PD predictably generates gridlock and subsequently causes the early deaths of Seniors living on Alberto. There is a large population of Seniors and frequent EMS dispatches. The most important change is needed between the end of the CA 17 Overpass and Alberto Way. The East Bound CA 9 right hand lane ends at the East side of the CA17 overpass where the second lane is actually the entrance ramp to CA17 15IF:gr_ North. CA9 is only one lane for 175-200 hundred feet until the CA17 56 exit enters CA9 EB. Before the CA17 Overpass, the second lane of EB CA9 becomes the entrance lane to CA17 SB and CA9 is one lane up to the point where the CA19 SB exit enters CA9EB. This area of CA9 from the CA17 Overpass to Los Gatos Blvd (LGB) as well as North & South on LGB for % - 1 mile are highly congested in every AM Rush Period during the school year, Since the added traffic from the 401-409 Alberto Way occurs during the school rush, there will be frequent gridlock due to the absence of the second lane from the end of the CA17 Overpass to the light at Alberto Way, The CA17 Overpass needs a renovation to handle the additional traffic. Only by widening CA9 to two lanes and extending the EB9 to Alberto left turn lane for 200-250 feet can gridlock be avoided. It must further be combined with closely managed signal timing changes from University to LGB. This gridlock would need to be avoided by renovating the CA9 - CA17 intersection in advance of the start of any construction so as not to cause an early death of anyone within the large senior population on Alberto Way (in all four developments). The closest EMS personnel are dispatched from the Fire Station on University. Now to address the other source of AM Congestion not discussed in any Traffic Report by either the Town of LG or LP Acquisitions, LLC Partners: SB17 traffic is already congested and backed up at both CA 9 exits (EB & WB) on many mornings by the LG workers Rush. It is our observation that the CA17 & CA9 intersection needs to be rebuilt and that no improvements should be allowed on any properties adjacent to the Intersection until this is thoroughly vetted with CalTrans. Allowing this PD would add millions to the intersection renovation when it would need to be demolished within a few short years for LG & Saratoga Area decongestion. Sensitivity Study elements that need to be added At 92,000 (+/-) square feet, the PD has the capacity to house as many as 746 employees and as few as the 350 that LP Acquisitions, LLC proposes. The peak traffic generated by the 1 or 2 large high tech tenants Lam targets is more likely to be spread over a Peak % or % Hour rather than the 2 hour Rush that Lam presents. Lam asserts that that many of the Employees in the PD will not be driving to the PD and will instead use busses and that the Tenant or two will not have any specific required work start time. This is folly if the targeted tenants are really 1-2 high tech companies. Lam does not understand that the large high tech companies it targets have pre -defined work hours that generate 30 to 45 minute peak traffic intervals. Typical is that a company with an 8:30 start time: at 8AM the parking lot is nearly empty and by 8:30AM it's nearly full. And vice versa full at 5PM quitting time and nearly empty at 5:30PM. LP Acquisition LLC understates Traffic by presenting only the fewest employees and longest rush period This is a well known phenomenon amongst those of us who traffic engineer high tech networks. The lower the traffic and the longer the peak demand is averaged, the better the overall traffic LOS appears while at the same time, the LOS during the Peak is still awful. So we use very small time periods over which to evaluate the peaks. 16IFcge When applied to Vehicular Traffic, the better measure of Peak Period LOS is more like count the traffic flows and calculate the LOS for every 5 or 10 minute interval and report on them. If the phone network was done LP Acquisition LLC's way, you'd wait for 4 second to hear dial tone at 1AM and 4 minutes at 10AMI This also appears to be a flaw in the ITE's methodology. With no sensitivity study of the trips generated by the complete range of employees occupying the PD and of the width in minutes of the Peak Period, there is no known limit to the Peak Traffic nor the "to be generated Infrastructure Capex needed to be made long after LP Acquisition LLC has completed the construction, sold the building and left" the Town of Los Gatos holding the Capex bag and its Residents all over Town steaming in the congestion caused by not requiring Infrastructure First. LP Acquisition LLC told residents of 420 Alberto that the PD contains 350 parking spaces and told the Commons its 390 spaces. LP Acquisition LLC proposes to remove about a dozen spaces from our street parking and making none of the PD parking available to Alberto Way residents or visitors. We object. We disagree and note that an official work start time compresses the rush hour into 15-30 minute windows. These assertions are not based in fact: in the 2 meetings we've had with LP Acquisitions, LLC, it represents that it has no idea who the initial Tenant is and purely arguing based on speculation. However, those of us who work in Silicon Valley high tech companies see these trends which drive down the space per employee: - employers are re -designing the offices to reduce the square footage occupied by each employee - size the building and its parking to accommodate "telecommuting employees" use of personal video conferencing is reducing the demand for conference rooms According to many available sources, including those that follow and in keeping with the experience of our residents who work at Silicon Valley high tech companies are having, the trend of space per employee is in a downward spiral. These are the hyperlinks to them: http://www.bdcnetwork.com/corenet-office-space-worker-shrinks-150-sf http://www.naiop,orgien/Magazine/2015/Spring-2015/Business-Trends/Trends-i n-Square-Feet-per-Office- Employee.aspx Below side -by -side photos of a bull pen seating space in the recently renovated Cisco San Jose Building i on Tasman, in which each employee occupies 40 square feet. 17IPage In two meetings with us, LP Acquisitions, LLC claims that the PD will generate 181 or 183 busy hour trips from what it claims to be a maximum of 350 employees in the building (260 square feet / employee). With worldwide Office Space / employee at 150 sq ft, US is at 191 sq ft / employee in 2014 and shrinking and there are more likely to be over 500 and as many as 735 employees as the OfficeFinder Detailed Calculator shows below: https://www.officefinder.com/officespacecalc.html Office Space Layout 1- 401-405 Alberto Rd = 735 employees with a highly "Efficient Custom" layout. Detailed Calculation Method President's: 1 Vice President's: 9 Executive's: 25 Partitioned Open Space: 220 Open Area Bullpen: 480 Conference Rooms: 16 32 168888888 Mail/Work Rooms: 10 Reception Area: 2 File Rooms: 4 Library: 20 Lunch Rooms: 50 Coffee Bars: 6 Usable Square Footage Indicated: 93562 sf 18IPage Powered hv: 0 FFI C&' 4r,!-CI*tsSF.1}ilk AWL: P. RN4l Al tX�1iF/. Office Space Layout 2 - 401-405 Alberto Rd = 505 employees with an "Efficient Rule of Thumb" layout. Rule of Thumb Method Number of Employees: 505 Layout Efficiency: Efficient Extraordinary Space: 0 sf Usable Square Footage Indicated: 93425 sf Powered by: OFFI C1 'il Eigi° INFCIRMA1IOk Pk0 tail-kftAt KfrWQi11., Office Space Layout 3 - 401-405 Alberto Rd = 425 employees with a "Typical Rule of Thumb" layout Rule of Thumb Method Number of Employees: 425 Layout Efficiency: Typical Extraordinary Space: 0 sf Usable Square Footage Indicated: 93500 sf Powered by: ©FFI C INfQA11AHOP AK EA° f 11yt4.► Office Space Layout 4 - 401-405 Alberto Rd = 375 employees: "Spacious Rule of Thumb" layout This is about what LP Acquisitions, LLC assumes in its 350 employee occupancy estimate. 191 Pape Rule of Thumb Method Number of Employees: 375 Layout Efficiency: Spacious Extraordinary Space: 0 sf Usable Square Footage Indicated: 93750 sf Powered by: OFFIC rivitildER �I,ih,�Mallilh tl'�p R11.1E6A4 Trip Count Sensitivity Study LP Acquisitions, LLC's traffic generation assertions conveniently omit the sensitivity study which are easily calculated by compressing the trips generated by the much more likely larger number of employees compressed into a more likely 30 - 45 minute wide "busy 1/4 or % hour" as employees at companies with set starting times for the start of business. Here is what's omitted. For LG to make a decision without it would be highly undesirable for the Residents of the Town of LG who will suffer deeper traffic inconvenient that today until the financially risky improvements are made by The Town itself to deal with the traffic by making costly widening to LG Blvd so its capacity can wick the AM Eastbound flow from Hwy-9 and very expensive for CalTrans in the renovation or replacement of the Hwy-9 & Hwy-17 intersection The table below should be used to compute the LOS and Impact on the other Intersection in Town and along 17 in any future traffic study revision. This has not been changed to correct it to the number of incremental trips from Applicant's Table 6 above. Maximum Possible additional trip generation by the Proposed Development. Arir4.ig h li P iii%'� i ui i3#9 m1g,- 4740.74m,y-' 42 Y`.8 - 6 .r ._ " 31'� .:. 13. 30 minute Rush 31S 42 62 424 636 84 124 1336 44 88 130 638' 118 174•:`�,.xi 176 260 1277 Traffic into and out of the PD Garage will increase AM Hwy-9 Spillback that extends to University 201 P g e The underground garage as proposed has one two-lane driveway. At any level of Peak Period trips, there will be spillback both into and out of the garage. Am Rush will be problematic by will extending Hwy-9 EB Spillback to University. Hwy-9 already has deep spillback from Los Gatos Blvd. PM Rush will see the bulk contained within the Garage. The PD Garage will cause intolerable AM & PM Congestion on Alberto Way The single Garage Driveway spillback will delay AM & PM exits from the Best Western and 420 Alberto's South drive Hwy-9 during Peak traffic periods. It will furthermore delay AM entrances by current Alberto residents. 2020 General Flan Section 9 Environment And Sustainability Element Our Response: The PDs Preliminary Environmental Assessment mentions no measures that the Applicant plans to take to protect Air or Water quality during or after the construction. 2020 General Plan Section 10 Noise Element Policy NO1-1.1 The Town, as part of the Environmental Review process, shall require applicants to submit an acoustical analysis of projects. All input related to noise levels shall use the adopted standard of measurement shown in Table NO1-2. Noise impacts of new development shall be evaluated in terms of any increase of the existing ambient noise levels and the potential for adverse noise and ground borne vibrations impacts on nearby or adjacent properties_ The evaluation shall consider short-term construction noise and on -going operational noise. Our Response: 420 & 435 Alberto Way have several "work at home" residents. The PD as submitted proposes no alternate office measures for them during construction. IV. Conclusion: Please deny the Application 211Page Petition to the Town of Los Gatos to DENY the Application for a Prop Development at 401-409 lberto '< y 41 J sed • Petrtipq4rAwkly and backg* - The attached Los Gatos Citizens Oppo to Proposed Dev't 401-409 Alberto Report, which has been submitted to the Town of Los Gatos by Bob Burke on our behalf, explains why the Proposed Development does not meet the Los Gatos 2020 Development Plan and our other reasons for requesting a Denial. Action 'petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge The Planning Board and Town Council to DENY the Application. Printed- ai e - Si" nature . ``Comment Date Ire vv. M ,,,,,,,I, 1l+e cuarL , fdl U /i 1 I b Altai( /W/15 ELO.--ReAp41 r2o C i,c. kt, fp< Cr 5 Nib 7:-"rcciee'Ael,.). z 1 7 7 r ,___,.g 0), (o- c,,- -5 i „i„-t.--- je7i).1 6ckicmiziN ' /fro dUtS Th ) Lof �-�a) r iA4-11 I t96DL I4p.L.,S �/� /Co rI nn►�s"Bf(foto 4, 1Ss CIAcic Cos6a /+) ) A �/�� /--� Gk1-c -. j 1(,[05PkI 16 /mac 14-> ..� s `� f 1 ii La c- s i 2 4p t . C v r i) ((J (- ; P( vc i (Vic_ i'l fro"T 31%I//6 gr (//t ,�N ''�t?;,arms f ,A1-----6) . / j6, /P C6 : }� irt 14C/<- ' c {` it h L- ,.✓ , 1/)! v �� fe. 1 5 G. , „ , ` i f it -S -i [."- Too �j J-,=7--.*-- 606 P v Petiton 1 to the iroT6un of Los Gatos to DENY the, Application for Paipto8ed .)eF c rr ent at 401-409 Ll(aulto Way Petition summary and background The attached Los Gatos Citizens Oppo to Proposed Dev't 401-409 Alberto Report, which has been submitted to the Town of Los Gatos by Bob Burke on our behalf, explains why the Proposed Development does not meet the Los Gatos 2020 Development Plan and our other reasons for requesting a Denial. Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge The Planning Board and Town Council to DENY the Application. Printed Name *#.1 ture A+ddr s Q!nl .ent - Date I � P A-23 7-31-16 i l 5 /12 (i `vi. z-o s- & ‹ , 4-s`6).? Z 77� i % 7t ( Qe-tOli.,id IN ditil'ik 420 Alb 4, Li -fir; /,,, C q6S . c 9.5 o 32 - - - 7/30 6' - --eI d( 6444 - - - fDS (i.4- j 0,0fi V f (clQ lac tYl 1AGi /1 i( 3g- 5 C-4,7'-cz / f-r°Y)-- -77$1/A-5 7') A. 7 /57 LS C 1.,),2,7-- ,r"r `'ErCAC)N•\, \3 e() ‘,.. \ l ,,,, \_. N 414( 7� 3(1 . ;T r 'aG 1)() b/Ar 6 A 42OA1 -0 LA/7- 6 Lc,S r ct;1,0 CA qT 0 A.. LG�� �� fv C Q' I�Z) iq 4. 11 +'k. rb ke/ `' d-z,-s G A ! -o S �''/L 7% 3 r . ,9/✓ ors -- Alb Er -hi 1* �� c1n r 3` 1 (/ t Lel‘,thif(k1/41( hiN Y-q Sn; Z Prit ,Marne:.. Sgrnature - . ' - � �Ye11'I1.141ti F _ .F Date ;,/i/A L Ni‘ `' r `. AC) i A VkrT r 'l (- t,ri $ V t '‘ 5 /{il r ( t". kd ` C r "L (LL WI ei H0,35 i CA J 1 ) 1L( Zkdj LitoiaLi1Y I WitgAA PG-t_ 6,diG� ei4m6 Aexam ck'q YIssex ✓ it lU' Ii I ) / j \ € 1 efr 1, 'hipis e. 126 e..f `) P32.. 611 i i.. 3 1/4-) 0 e, 1[L E avlL.11vJ J 6- -- I r% iVec v ( 9 o37_ y,,, fL! r(l. 4-fi gJ 'r6 � ; V4 / L ._ l .tU vvrney ,,����?l�P�'`i�i f ,..:, ;/ 6 �o s i -,. ,6.f r J 1‘ b( / 1 01 ;° r �7vZ VIA V \ \ co � �'',�,1 � � . , - q'e 5 e� ,�-- � 1 � ice- c� ���eThc-yrns � �) I J) 6 'r filci in if ele hhQ1 116 C ueS-q de loS cnafor at( 1 (k) CA-7-)-:oN (,Aftfvo, 4 cuce4a aie. [..)5 6-1,* 1 i 1-i)1,-reAl toe (1 s J 105 c- - fr -rifrk elfin 17;6:,1 (ii c .eLis 66L4-05 ' -1. \i, N 't.. L cikeM z- 1 c 4,L Lv--c' , W'( t'l‘* 4AG \\1'1:v 1 a t k C ' �_ 3 6' cid,Ceid1 B •- I -14. Printed Name . Signature Addr :' _, .. _ Comment Date/ ai4SZtj 634. (Jk*S 6(,)13 t-P-0 °(1-i)-12-ftA-6 td t9 (,05 0-(NAeAx) (,L)\ (4 ,3rKd /14 a'r ilivk y 9-35— 3 1 °° 173'.i 5p/!C V i 435---e,40 w 5- urr541e {or eas / edep- b ',/ 06 3. PJL2 UJ it ,1111% Yl (' C, e1 Q a�!' c) YYv1-.tQ- - . , J e-I 3,5- 4 e_✓-tt a, { 10o A&Cv1�v FG, t �•� cite �o+� c_in;1 I.ie A Z 1 1 / i u, 1- \ �q / 435 , L W LJAY `it V .,�'l rl(Jf FIC �zO -�, ,T F� . �1 (1 i 0 / 1'aid'I t � ,4l - j `/ f at-P ��> t' : fry. / i o -5 � � 43 �-Bg ry -15 V f `rri' l i t b t FF/4-� A ills 0/� 06, \ I bl l r� .�..4 � j I N 1 3 9t ) 4/ e_ /s#► II \ l i,4 . �f Sf N a .r tf.c.A4,-6/4---4,64f f Ccfr:irn 0 . Kde ' ? a4d-1/(4 443;- 41621/0 0 1-' "PlEirtr, $ i 4.If, 0 t fti ip j -16,Lk d ; 93s hile rio t.' # 0 7„0 (v 4 Vd ' V ` 3 5 AI 7 er d -4- Cr -�' wr CA, k (A PrintedName:, ' Sig1at % fl nets . 'Or. Date / Ad/1/' v iii ! resin Go� r�✓"�-- ) Adap ' " / '� Y..\-\-\c' \..\\ \\_\------ i- N-')--\\\\D'' \ 1;\\\\0 3r 16 e - Be.el1 c !'' 410-0 der6.0 i ?" reett oko* . , . 5vSoknnc, l ‘3 \I . 4Z() Ai 6 -w-S 7/3 J fto 4)PONA A 1 f 470 p4144--N),./cLk, i 22 0 ill.'-' iit i [46,—/- t„,„.4 (,,,,,77.?1 lib ../3 i/A. IA i*or 4,-- t /v., 1A)-0 CkUrAto , 435 L ke ifv,..t i- c44.7 ((. ` AI 1114, AL5Eicro ki g#35 19',2n. /" it �� , ' .-- 7---/A Siit 5 4 tev Lei, f 5,,,,, (-c, - `1 Z 0 QA a,eir W s .) o v e G :f L---, I / o -DC3 c - Q ,'..�It l-4437 (12v r,J xg y c(' 61(r I‘, / ez_.(..‘00.L .� ci r(0 1 r/ u i, b o u r cc :_.� r im mr() Lab nW C y3--Q M\r't) , - k ,r 2o\t '/ r,%(L° b)Y4 FiliLi I ! Aklatvlb L30,1 412 C'JiLT.01 rwe t out ... 811Aht 'j , .?.. j____9- to Vt \ vo.hMavt4 A i 1� 1, kr\Af\t& -; A 1 (17,0 101qiiku wal 3l k l) r4 Printed Name 'Signature Add s Comment Date tWa ri t horir y20igg,1 W 43(//°-0 81 r IV SrA ,a► 2A3a). c-Pa`a, QQ_ Dose 1 GS rckrn� S 0 ,t S A1„ � 44io A-16 rii-D W o. y * 4-11I g !, 14,4 Al ,t G-r rs _S 40-0 irkqe,• t A/ ' 4f / g 1 / fiL GA56,5754425 / ( 'r / / ,///,, LbA IV E . 1u11%,LL 4 zo PsigeOL 1,10,, V=a7 ,l k ..../ ii /6 S° FLy 0(4eVI ruAefao Or-( I fi Co _,„AL_Adj, Ci4eAS IC Cif, 4LoAtioeft� 3 MN 91/4 U (l Ap -at- v A 4 z 0 o-o,ei , - 2— Lc+4S 0 AL 6eler0 1,N] f bri+t-nriv rn0 ow 9261 At1iatao 6 wrv4C V(//1 f Lvi�-Q- INa 11 A.e ( J f'( A L\ Z a k\.\C6 40 �6/ - 4.6 J. 5,,AAAilL L47_0NI lor2,40 ?It IL, P Petition r tion to the Town of Los Gatos to DENY t le Application fo[r. a Proposed Development at 401-409 Al rt° Way Petition .summary- and background Action,petitionecifor The attached Los Gatos Citizens Oppo to Proposed Dev't 401-409 Alberto Report, which has been submitted to the Town of Los Gatos by Bob Burke on our behalf, explains why the Proposed Development does not meet the Los Gatos 2020 Development Plan and our other reasons for requesting a Denial. We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge The Planning Board and Town Council to DENY the Application. PO 00e `$iigna t :-. A i r ^. r. F Pt' Date h : A 6 v 0 clie. y ~' 6-Q.1- 44.. `t3� A-lbevo ivi ,/ 9sv.�z �r�T�1L1 t)%% 0 not Let v i-e IN a -e ad, k / / I'1 q T�lok►,,,,- 435 41,De "W' 9:03 Z ' S'`�e� c A Abu TA Ina i- A z j'!f tii l Losv4e65,e4 Il-Affr L t c t " D Z/ i f'`�rC/$T / FiJ / I .7(41451-Aiiei& i ' ,I� `i ce) i i ''J 14.36 7 L ''' L`,L , 7NI4 / I b �--- �� I l w1 C� 3 � � 4i' , t-r, i,aa�`c.�-,-1 , �j 'ten r1 y R �,FF-�- / ''/.6, Yk K 4 Fi-- ocf � . •.�, I tr 3S lei. Jo U'u7 # (6, y , l l f 6 ,...\134Aikekeseoti— i? e.s131162 ilatiotreg it) , 41,0 niboilo a i7Y? Nfi,ino�� ► VII vide t04/ 0, ite We i t� it �c_ f Petition to the Town of Los Gatos to PERMANENTLY DENY the Applicaure n for a Proposed Development at 401-409 Alberto Way Petition summary and background ` The attached report, which is being submitted by Bob Burke, explains why the Proposed Development does not meet the Los Gatos 2020 Development Plan and our other reasons for requesting a Permanent Denial. Action petitioned 'for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge The Planning Board and Town Council to PERMANENTLY DENY the Application. Printed Name . r Signature r Acdr•.ess Cod ment. Date .'rAsl1) rloc\C p„pH )go) Cu .s-4 .t S s wI Yi t /!I SWeer&rivtelL5) j-or3kr - a ica Cu E5--DLz6 6A-T-&s-kiv s /4 14A0 Mr3-c6O06.N irZ- mod AU3 wilvi liktkL^ ebliCp Ff� f 140 0 '920 P i - t,e,,Ht VII4V---g- LF� ! t1\06,11-olV p,ile\ - I- lye C-0?-----`{Zo -41 j ig --1c C-4 or[\-1 0_6. `tao 4 b Y Jl, ' •)- ` tie CPf1C f Irvine. eAt..v,c, e.0 --_ 1712.9 4/6 r sty ,t2-6 '/ 2-%l J u ( eTio 4zo k}1beAD �` Qre t ct �m F ,. Sig d 4 �r�' � N" �i i�ras Date /411.,i'Vv6 //l. Cry ri9",pe_ $- �r Si l6 6.4ePr .aVit) ciult ct Le.¢ —! : it /6.S Guest 4 Ls Gum WY(/* 8-2-7/ /�iei 'i71e e / 17 ' (U ci- ems' Rnshe l '' h gi /137 ateeizi de (6s5ei .V-%/ August 4, 2016 Attention Planning Commission regarding the Alberto Way Project RECEIVED AUG 047016 TINNING DIVISION Please accept this petition opposing the proposed project. It has the signatories of a majority of the 103 occupied units at the Los Gatos Commons. We at the Commons support the document authored by Bob Burke as submitted by the signatories from the other condo complexes on Alberto Way. From: The Ad Hoc Committee to Oppose the Alberto Way Project The Los Gatos Commons The Planning Commission's stated goal for Los Gatos is to help to "ensure the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and property owners." To: The Planning Commission, Los Gatos From: The Los Gatos Commons Condominiums We the senior residents of Los Gatos Commons Condominiums present this petition opposing the proposed 401-409 Alberto Way project. The 2020 Town Plan goal is the harmonious blending of new and old (General Plan, Policy CD-1.2j. This project does not blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood, which is dominated by a senior residential complex. In an emergency, especially one that calls for evacuation, it would be impossible for all our residents to leave quickly and safely from the one exit point on Alberto Way. Traffic congestion and density during the construction phase and ongoing would impede emergency vehicles from getting to and from the Commons. This project would make it difficult for residents to get to appointments, including medical ones, on time because of extensive delays and gridlock at the intersection at Los Gatos/Saratoga Road. We would be subjected to air and noise pollution that would be a problem for our residents, especially those with respiratory conditions or those recovering from illness or surgery. We urge that the proposed project not be approved. LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO OPPOSE ALBERTO WAY PROJECT Date Name Signature Unit # Address //#zi : '-f caff/76ak � 4 CJ / �4 4,,3% Fx', . `r 4-" r IN(' Pi orhCf-46-1 tuyi. e i 43. i I I k V i c.6D& b F- V( / A 2 Z 4 _?5. 1.18:Ke et, vi c'11/11/4 Ai g 1.. / 1/1 4 4,?'5 A eee g D 9/d/6. dH/ LT J.0 y A) 2/s g ¥ V3 /-L a aiify 5/f .1U4-10 K ,ems < `7' r4-L E%/ ‘ cam, C7L4 fir- . / s i albs W / I /6 444.4.( VG/6 -g ida.-w ' !/ / 5/ l/51 .i_ - g,,i,/1111t.47? 6)-teL- ga,i,‘ea ,uc76 0',5aaae)A4---2_6-D x/2 /6 6:44"2-e- ,4t--_,_"2,4_. /4,7_,,e4P -D ti e L/5 / XI b",24- iz)-, z /drc J vL(717kil 02 yl 4/ 3-3 n C B 2Tp GO (Ai q I ) lia vnt S7CLxlc2P `Gn J 6.) c- r o0 t• I., C ff 53 74 Y/11,e>/241-{-, ZO'-iterci-k_ /5ve-1-5-f-, —'-'1‘,/tizt32- 6 ,?,,-)- 2.-/.9, &_.",i;Le 8)////,,,T1 .4 0704C /4-,w---727., ) l /ro La fra j r7 e eo r Q 0 28 l 4/ /Pk erg Lc. a /ic i, Gu ►44 s, O 1lR7 G ,� i� "' IS prV in p1a '.4 /�f t (+ %.� A) (s V ,/J,% j j T(I72L L.�t� i ciO ii I P-ifitle (-f 1/f� Vc„Ali9 (..,� 1,V 2G %5f Atbefw., The Planning Commission's stated goal for Los Gatos is to help to "ensure the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and property owners." To: The Planning Commission, Los Gatos From: The Los Gatos Commons Condominiums We the senior residents of Los Gatos Commons Condominiums present this petition opposing the proposed 401-409 Alberto Way project. The 2020 Town Plan goal is the harmonious blending of new and old (General Plan, Policy CD-1.2). This project does not blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood, which is dominated by a senior residential complex. In an emergency, especially one that calls for evacuation, it would be impossible for all our residents to leave quickly and safely from the one exit point on Alberto Way. Traffic congestion and density during the construction phase and ongoing would impede emergency vehicles from getting to and from the Commons. This project would make it difficult for residents to get to appointments, including medical ones, on time because of extensive delays and gridlock at the intersection at Los Gatos/Saratoga Road. We would be subjected to air and noise pollution that would be a problem for our residents, especially those with respiratory conditions or those recovering from illness or surgery. We urge that the proposed project not be approved. LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO OPPOSE ALBERTO WAY PROJECT Date Name Signature Unit # Address b://i Erloki.dhieLk ZFF-. /T-Er %/- g,53 1,-4 i`C4-. ('/ / Ami,,,,A,,,, J , Y.� in e y d' /07-.r kid,, I nor f E? t -fir g v ka4s, 9,0 , f y 5, 4„ i.Ciay ii beds\{.Si6Ckr mac.. ►1't f 1Z11 1f9 Wbedo1i I AzLeilvi sah,u c, is 1P,, ,.. 2 3 $- 9 yti Atheptii ',,y 1 :bill - \ � -;,'S 44 -. 1q 5 HMJsi e - WAY f - ( il{EL C,.,1 (AJf/ it E n ✓ // 5 .-,0 ► t0 f -)'VC) y MCtat IIvey 15r 9 LfS/ A !b-e,reir Z✓,- 3'( cr'/ Asev ae c53 95( aae4Z .11:27 / y -e -iiNrc ,e.-,; s- I -' • / 5g- 4453 8 - l L a S Ale (4t.) it _&,L.-., .err,, 2 5ZG L'ceq Al -been) 6-' '~ ? , `r s c tc ,4_ `1 %9? 6 C tic 7 Ca/1/ 5 `z- garbaraz7--ohi-tle %-.11 A L -d�} L' P. �f rCl-) I ire4______q__40e,�i t . rt ; 4s1 A�7 4-3q LG f .1--- ?,FLU J , ,477-- C-/ 3 6- 2.-40,\tv,\e, v\o,,,,\,4 tee- i 3l(,( LI / 4/ ved', iv / 8 ` •• _ io y I M 3 o1 ,• L 1 ILL —I' 25 ` 41►� 1 + fir►. , :I OP 1► 1 I . .l _► a ` . si l ` s y 4. R R CUB .t c ,► Yr e 1e(/ Q4 '< LW 7 i WcJ The Planning Commission's stated goal for Los Gatos is to help to "ensure the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and property owners." To: The Planning Commission, Los Gatos From: The Los Gatos Commons Condominiums. We the senior residents of Los Gatos Commons Condominiums present this petition opposing the proposed 401-409 Alberto Way project. The 2020 Town Plan goal is the harmonious blending of new and old (General Plan, Policy CD-1.2). This project does not blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood, which is dominated by a senior residential complex. In an emergency, especially one that calls for evacuation, it would be impossible for all our residents to leave quickly and safely from the one exit point on Alberto Way. Traffic congestion and density during the construction phase and ongoing would impede emergency vehicles from getting to and from the Commons. This project would make it difficult for residents to get to appointments, including medical ones, on time because of extensive delays and gridlock at the intersection at Los Gatos/Saratoga Road. We would be subjected to air and noise pollution that would be a problem for our residents, especially those with respiratory conditions or those recovering from illness or surgery. We urge that the proposed project not be approved. LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO OPPOSE ALBERTO WAY PROJECT Date /*-ttr- Name Signature Unit # Address ff�.% 6, ,eict � c� ,;)", 7 .exvi, e,,r ,,, / / i 6 -,/ 374,00,e r GC i z . 6 , g-_A- /G <lecr,-> 0 e Sake:- -.a-4 ._, _1 z.4er- JO 1 A i`39 19ldc-r-M 44,7cr7 a7 8-2?-1t. cyb1e-A4Cev, .cit.-4.46.-Ze., aawl tat 4 431 AL(oer Lowy L.G. g -/4 I1sc$/Q/21chi , '_ o / is- 6 ify3 4/4 erfa1a,% 46 I , ���� f f� /.� / 7. "./ .-,., ar,,;+J -,L ...r IR .A..." , /'., 6il211� avcce,o(e , /�r, id / ° G . i ce- a [ 53 -Ali 3-o c-f sern f , Cyg-'1�--1/ G `v' Ldi.� r/'L or,,741•24((o1 /�J� i L � s � k (i/t 'k C, A L A S ' ' G 314 ';`,�� C06.0(�r,1 i GAG . ;,, 2 4 4 tJ E1 & o -6 -';)�At6eRT6 2 03 A W.zty Li 3 r"l A) 6 er-1 . r,L) ,� L.: c., 4 , y. /2116 _j Robe ,1- L v 2 g/;g% jeose/na,cy//4/./gr //t �/-/gr T2r /5-I/ } ram. /WA,'71G Lieu L /6711- 4‘r-i,erle,.6 .4,40c.4-i r /� J /q � `' /e," _ ..7e7..C1 a fray y'J { -7 l 504rb� 2- %; ; 4 ((,8 39 alberfa 4/ -qq‘L_, .os/ r i'l rA km_R-1 \\ ck\ 2--\,--s1/4. 1,9Axr,-)71-0 g/z.144,/, X1',11-'/47-g i,\\c-A, 7-A Lk% (n-QQKIJar,v).or7 C6)-1)/_54kc-4) MAI-P-41,0 LILL,,,,A) aiii,,_) 2-.2_ '5/413 Wev) �/a% l to Ih-�c�-r'� IL.1M..a.-rtis - � !3 �-� 1 Prllp.e � Lii ~�CT-- ��k� � 8/ r ei,,,tdi ,io / e -- a.„24,1_ yro n/ , ' f ,/, .j2.2 / The Planning Commission's stated goal for Los Gatos is to help to "ensure the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and property owners." To: The Planning Commission, Los Gatos From: The Los Gatos Commons Condominiums We the senior residents of Los Gatos Commons Condominiums present this petition opposing the proposed 401-409 Alberto Way project. The 2020 Town Plan goal is the harmonious blending of new and old (General Plan, Policy CD-1.2). This project does not blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood, which is dominated by a senior residential complex. In an emergency, especially one that calls for evacuation, it would be impossible for all our residents to leave quickly and safely from the one exit point on Alberto Way. Traffic congestion and density during the construction phase and ongoing would impede emergency vehicles from getting to and from the Commons. This project would make it difficult for residents to get to appointments, including medical ones, on time because of extensive delays and gridlock at the intersection at Los Gatos/Saratoga Road. We would be subjected to air and noise pollution that would be a problem for our residents, especially those with respiratory conditions or those recovering from illness or surgery. We urge that the proposed project not be approved. LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO OPPOSE ALBERTO WAY PROJECT Date Ur t" 1 Name Signature Unit # Address NIJ7 ,e0eAk?ei �lG(� ,�C) /3/ a y�,h i q,'! ,/1 7/eY/2 /�6 ', .� hen% S l / 2 r 5€ ki isii 6 4 07 .51,(2."-c xi;n\,,6be_. ) (--)-t4-(2( 4) 6af.r-iZ (4-10 E 3P - e oet.a '' Po i! 1 6 443 f v' VIAL <4',J3JiC 0,UG -P-z�s �s t /3/i‘ j98,67/404'd-7- , "‘-4gAae-/-Z 7/7 The Planning Commission's stated goal for Los Gatos is to help to "ensure the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and property owners." To: The Planning Commission, Los Gatos From: The Los Gatos Commons Condominiums We the senior residents of Los Gatos Commons Condominiums present this petition opposing the proposed 401-409 Alberto Way project. The 2020 Town Plan goal is the harmonious blending of new and old (General Plan, Policy CD-1.2). This project does not blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood, which is dominated by a senior residential complex. In an emergency, especially one that calls for evacuation, it would be impossible for all our residents to leave quickly and safely from the one exit point on Alberto Way. Traffic congestion and density during the construction phase and ongoing would impede emergency vehicles from getting to and from the Commons. This project would make it difficult for residents to get to appointments, including medical ones, on time because of extensive delays and gridlock at the intersection at Los Gatos/Saratoga Road. We would be subjected to air and noise pollution that would be a problem for our residents, especially those with respiratory conditions or those recovering from illness or surgery. We urge that the proposed project not be approved, LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO OPPOSE ALBERTO WAY PROJECT Date Name Signature Unit # Address og/ay The Planning Commission's stated goal for Los Gatos is to help to "ensure the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and property owners." To: The Planning Commission, Los Gatos From: The Los Gatos Commons Condominiums We the senior residents of Los Gatos Commons Condominiums present this petition opposing the proposed 401-409 Alberto Way project. The 2020 Town Plan goal is the harmonious blending of new and old (General Plan, Policy CD-1.2). This project does not blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood, which is dominated by a senior residential complex. In an emergency, especially one that calls for evacuation, it would be impossible for all our residents to leave quickly and safely from the one exit point on Alberto Way. Traffic congestion and density during the construction phase and ongoing would impede emergency vehicles from getting to and from the Commons. This project would make it difficult for residents to get to appointments, including medical ones, on time because of extensive delays and gridlock at the intersection at Los Gatos/Saratoga Road. We would be subjected to air and noise pollution that would be a problem for our residents, especially those with respiratory conditions or those recovering from illness or surgery. We urge that the proposed project not be approved. LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO OPPOSE ALBERTO WAY PROJECT oalv2/) 5 A Q rn Date Name Signature Unit # Address b / f 0 (kW 61/0 4-' 2o6k- 2-sq 0)&10 w { 8,34 TOL ia, R-Stiia- #1444iiy ° ift 0 il )) .5'`. - lb' 14V OLr,�+ n Zo Z 4' Pi 0' ,,,, w-ii'► 'g- 5-1‘_ ki#444-, ' ik RID 1 . . .-1 ft 1-/c am dve n v st /9-15 Jennifer Armer From: Katherine Hartsell <kmhartsell@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 9:43 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 401-405 Alberto Way Proposed Project Hi Jennifer: am writing in opposition to the proposed building at 401-405 Alberto Way. My family has resided in Los Gatos since 1968, and we have watched our small little town blossom. There have been many additions which are nice and add value to the town. Then there are others which seem to not be in line with what a Los Gatos brand is. This proposed development seems to be very much not aligned with a Los Gatos brand. It will obliterate views by being very tall, and it will bring in much more traffic and congestion into an already congested area than the roads are meant to handle. It just seems to not be well thought out. Perhaps a scaled down version, with much less auto traffic, would be a better idea. For one thing there are many seniors who live nearby on Alberto, and this is there only outlet to the main roads. Having seniors have to fight traffic in order to get to the store is just not a pleasant proposal. The access to walk to town from Alberto is already marred by having to cross Hwy 9 at the entrance to Hwy 17. There is already way too much traffic, and this development will increase that by 300+ parking spaces -- many of which will be used multiple times during the day. So I imagining another 1000+ cars in that area every day. It sounds like a disaster for Los Gatans. Thank you for listening, Katherine Hartsell 184 College Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 1 Jennifer Armer From: jawolf3@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 9:37 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Loretta Fowler Subject: Office Building sited at 401-409 Alberto Way Dear Ms. Armer, The LP Acquisitions plan to construct office buildings at 401-409 Alberto Way will further clog the intersections in the area and make travel to the elementary schools, middle school, and high school even more time-consuming and frustrating. Residential over -development in Los Gatos has already caused over -capacity at every school in the Los Gatos Union School District -- overdevelopment responsible for the already unacceptable congestion in the morning and afternoon in the affected neighborhoods. The LP Acquisition site is nestled among three schools. As a family with school -age children, my wife and I find this project unnecessary and detrimental to the quality -of -life and atmosphere of our community. I regularly visit my older sister, who lives on Alberto Way, and I know that her community is incensed at this latest bit of disastrous proposed construction. Please do not approve this project. Cordially, John Fowler Registered Voter 120 Cleland Ave Los Gatos, CA 95030 To The Town of Los Gatos from the Citizens who reside in the Condo Complexes alone Alberto Wav in apposition to Architectural & Site Application S-15-056 and Conditional Use permit U-15-009. Overview - Attached are: • Our detailed study & report authored by Bob Burke showing why this proposed development does not conform to the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. • Signed petition from Alberto Way residents opposing the 401-409 Alberto Way office project. • This summary of concerns and objections to demolish three existing office buildings and construct two new, two-story office buildings with underground parking at 401-409 Alberto Way: 1. Safety Issues — particularly Children & the Elderly With new traffic turning left to Alberto and left again into proposed new building - it will become difficult and possibly unsafe for children & elderly to cross Alberto on the way to school. • Fire and EMS have been blocked from access to Alberto by Gridlock as Hwy-9 presently exists: the development will terminate lives unless the road improvements are made in advance of demolition & construction • The curve near 401-409 limits visibility and the proposed development does no mitigation of this hazard. • With hundreds of new vehicle trips to Alberto during Rush hours, children & elderly are particularly endangered crossing either Alberto, Hwy-9 at the signal light or the Hwy-17 NB ramp from Hwy-9. • Large construction truck drivers could possibly not see short children in front of them. • Health issue caused by 15-16 months of Noise, Dust and Pollution during construction phase. • Alberto way does not have another exit! 2. Traffic issues • Approval of the Application will foreclose the possibility of renovating or replacing the Hwy-17& Hwy-9 Intersection leaving LG with permanent congestion. The Intersection needs renovation or replacement before approval. • A 93,000 Sq. Ft. commercial building in addition to the existing new restaurant, healthcare facility, Best Western Inn, Alberto Oaks Office Park and four residential condominium complexes on a two lane road will significantly increase the congestion of traffic on Hwy-9 and LG Blvd. • Alberto Way will be highly impacted considering that there is only one way in/out of our street. The traffic study submitted by LP contains errors, omissions & assumptions that combine to minimize the traffic impact on Los Gatos. • Waiting times at the light will be several times increased both in and out of Alberto Way. This will also cause reduced air quality from the string of added rush hour vehicles idling at the red light or rushing on yellow, producing additional emissions to the air we breathe. • Increased traffic during the construction phase and after completion compromises security and safety. • During construction there will be sidewalk closures, so residents, (families, children, seniors), will have to use the road to go to school or downtown. • Many cars entering and exiting the new buildings will impose additional safety risks for all that pass the building, which is the only way out. 4. Size, Mass and Height of proposed Buildings • The proposed buildings are >3 times the size of what's there now (93,000 sq. ft. vs. 30,000) and massive in size relative to the residential buildings in the area. • Furthermore, we were told the number of employees the buildings can hold is 350. In reality, they are capable of holding up to 735 with high tech companies' bull pen seating layouts. • The Proposed development also removes many large mature trees & bushes, replacing them with small ones. • The Conservation Element goals address protecting and enhancing the natural environment. Programs that retain natural features such as tree preservation, limited grading, and water conservation maintain the natural character of Los Gatos. • The buildings will obstruct the view of the mountains and sunsets for the residents (which is one of the beautiful things to look forward to at the end of day), and is incompatible with the neighborhood. • Also, many of the residents in condos near the site have home offices. The construction noise and disruption will make it impossible to work. • Therefore the proposed development is incompatible with the character of the neighborhood and transforms it from a Iow impact residential bedroom community in an open space tucked away in a wooded area to a "concrete & glass jungle" dominated by a large commercial space. • .Reduced property values The large commercial building (with all the problems described above) in the closest proximity will change our status of desired cul-de-sac area and reduce our property values. • This will be especially pronounced for those owners with views today. /S/ Bob Burke for signatories to the Petition from: The Pueblo de Los Gatos (420 Alberto), The Casitas #4 (435 Alberto) and Bella Vista (multiple addresses on Cuesta De Los Gatos, Treseder Ct & Maggi Ct. The Los Gatos Commons (445 Alberto Way and other addresses) are submitting their cover & petition directly. at'& ZN. 4. T Y:i' 4 - WY' R19p ��..+ W.S' a , t $ Y A%kr%cs'f o O F ' it; - • - - �o ent at 4 1 4 •_.: iberto Petition summary and background The attached Los Gatos Citizens Oppo to Proposed Dev't 401-409 Alberto Report, which has been submitted to the Town of Los Gatos by Bob Burke on our behalf, explains why the. Proposed Development does not meet the Los Gatos 2020 Development Plan and our other reasons for requesting a Denial. Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge The Planning Board and Town Council to DENY the Application. Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date � ,� L C r`i G �- t� �.` ' :' 17 / 1•.' ,l ! • i �, I ' % . ,, ,' '/ ,1_L', L L A fry r-aF -=' q -A.� r d e it --t e .'� L -et -. , -a 6: � f - i ' . r 9`--2)34.,--j 1-\,-k eAt/I, ,<_ . , A.,:ic c..,,t,A c i f ' . 9 5 c 2 E 1c IC l c.zi0i, lr�`105 y r'L t jdiLr &V-:1je I��brry- ( -A- r �/-�' f , 4...,- l r:-`.-may 1 75'4.,. r.;�:- cif �� . ; ) .. -r f���° % (//",.� ���------- c/.,= f1fl.•''''C-I(�icj.(1' `%' r �,- -,,/ F G1 ��:..1-'4 // r7 .mac I 4/A' 2'7)// / L_:PI -T L)E 11111k iA 0 , 3 1 \ k k ` N I I f ilc, .�� +"'rAK-,%� � of h `. !,�`-�V �Vf Lc) 5 f:',,A.%!C 4,.:, A -r; J -S.' / J 6 As. "i ,z1",, f S p, v` f. j) 4 - . .z. 1, d c, ,-_ t I y3 r ! `c, / �'" '� iti, 5 `' } 4)1,(!��! r' (.- S (1G,h i. call - 5 2 Lilt 4.1 r�'- " ' PI A uY`I ,G i Y ./ /L Printed Name Signat e Address Comment Date iler:II( , I) i.- iiik i - .., ' k :',..e\•f\:\t,)-: v' f\ t / / ,i, , ' -,.c _ ,--- ....1i o*.c , i',LI,_e,,-tc- - -e, -'L" i•ll.: , ii J , / \ Ag 1 I( N 3\ 1•lv • \ ‘' \...--a- i -,J ii 1 ic, A1CZ1 1____ it:51(6 L Le 1 l' • + I C (.._ 4 1( * 1 J ). e I PC 1._ r 1.\-) 4.4 j 1 c 11, id/ C)) mg, ia.e,— siiiii, ..?...),(i1/4 I\ k,,, A liwe, li I/Jib N\iips_i) V-id, 11W; k 1 / lit; Printed Name Sign ature Address Comment Date 4Zr; •ji'''' 'cl i j") d Z ) i / I / 1 qr.. 1 - (-•t--- ? l iilliC , _4 - 0/ / ,...--;-'-': -'.---'....--7-------- 7 (Z.--'f., ( i7.? if...!-',/,)#S- :1:"4---i> 7670/, t y, ., it- -2-17.,, 9-35— Aibev4z) e'LL-ck4)_ 3 7----, 73,7 9p/ic \I Ty tli_lkit:IvA , ____-- _ /-qy , 2 / 4-1- -/ 3 lAiii;.A-r/c., ...,...,,,/ ,')--- to).5q,,-: I , jrit.5 / (Yeio, II 0 4', 4 , ., (1 J. N3V}qka GaAL00.6 t L H-ir AI LUC ij _J,7 2,_ 4 '.5,/1// 0 tin, e )4,: \ 0 -:-/c4 c (' , OVIVALQ.. Oe.10:::' , ti. Li 55 \ \-12C e- tt 1iv ' ,,'Ik 1:4- I -1-0,-. 1,,ke c:/6-1. C Irk 4 ke\ e Y1 ':5 1 k / IL:, . 43 ,.-, e,6fTo JAY -1,-tv Ai vc.lit Tp_AFt-„( A, 7-0-i.,..er•J • t I j/ k-, , / - 7' ( - )7, " t , --, /, .• ? `,, )- i ,-, 13<:": /I/ /i• -,-k , ,,,A, P. . 6 -716- ri.,,,, (...- 4 ',./ ( (--:it< I t-iii14-1-i)--91,/v1-5 4,-/z__Zteld"------ -1-1-3 4-5e141. ti,I4 -1:k 15 1-0.2,4LFF74.,eit,44,ii-,..q/c7e ?:// i6_ fik-1-1-41:;illb 1 4611k; ' t\A-A4E--32-; , _ A.L54.). taex,.147 1 - 4\ 1-, I. 1 t zlibr,, baiiA(Lit -,A.uie.i(i Ak.A„t at '-it.,6-a,:k 1: LI ,,,f-, fx,iibc.A.tc I.L\t- P-1 Nk, L r -,) i,f5,10 c ,.. A ("V 144x,L.;,/, (47./A--1 .,? ii3s- e-iyarri-e5 itA )2_ ' e c„...„---, tict'-e i II; 16(11 r , A4'1, ., 1 . r-t> r, fir ( nj.,(1,f,' - iZutzie '(,(' y (e „..'"fr-i" / ( / 1 / 4:5:4; it-iii-JaLfo (.0,:t _-11- 1- //:1,,,Y6 ti.,,Ltv: ?'.j1_1(1,4,..crt-7' fttliq-..rli,,,/ :4/ i i , , `Y/ /47 V L , 1 I 1_, w) 161 ,,' 110Aef,=,c:, cts? C MIR tic ' tt i 1 1).‘ i9-1,6ipi, t: .111A c ) , s} Y \/c il i',.1,L "t,----L------- 9 --') ) 1) ev-1L A,i,-- r-, "\- - 0) ‘1\f\jr.,,L, AV i). - •.,( (--cl k,,1 \ 'f• , Printed Name Signature 7 Address Comment Date /1/ar,,icz Skizria (- �. ✓ ollet i"k 4- 4L3 4, JP/ L "..I/ A� Srv+ ,qt 7 „3U LodakcL 8 / r ik 0 -Y0 64-6. s a.. t s � Ltto Aibei+a wt, 4 `f / Sr 1' /1 A Ce'( 6-n NA $ 4 A 11,e r-iekX # 9 / Fl i 0 4 �/ '�=--` G.561 lef f / / ° /� / 1V MI%l7 ��, UUi 27 41//// /4 .441e, 4.Ara e 0 vz i/ /7- ,d--- / 2V4 ?L F i jv .I--Y A9tr(1,4 . -Alievivi .. ru4 tf a0 MIDeAD Vthof40'4 gt ! & moo.. +c-µ.__ -c. 11),, --� v.�a A t -r-. w 0(4 811114 ./. 1/1(1 k. ii-tA 04---k- It,, Attach) Wclig, t''Z-5. 41-C>kbtr t3 M/i f' Se-CiftdiA 410 ock.5.evimi .-061/4-(*. i 2._ 9Vicv. cd4 ' A 1/4\1-0 4t-eser0 W `1.4I2- 5(./ 74 43rif-ctn j muI1annur 13 920 /4 (Verit Q vial_ % 0/6, tvy-e- Hzsilmtkir r( IA 0 K\'.eirA-0 I, ,,,I -1 ?NIL J. 4 ?-c' ik 1 bexko \Oa Printed Name Signature r Address Comment Date -WA 617'-\, / A\talC;k1 - ) Ikil\A4(.: \9kt Lt. 5 \ k.„ U ly/ / \ilat( Ca r r L \ -p L- (Jk 10(;, K .,)• . f ; I i 1L( c. 4'' ' 11 V'' \P1 _ .( ~ VA V k, (-;A),in., ` i/J V; • 5 i, 1V l 4 1,16 ,[0,„1..k.yi, v.5-s,,,,, _,,,,i, r,,,,,- i\;\.__-__ 1 ;p1Hk:: -. -t.A..",A.61 6e -- 1 1 —1 C.0,4 15 1/4.,\ • . A 7 3-4_ .10,_11,11 c,k,), ‘0--,' ii , , • q {► -.` avik,_ 7_, -,7, 4;k 4 _YeSt.riel( 1 1-7 1 i, .'c '�, c/3L,3 ? E v-', Li,( 'L1 4}.(�,,_.,,' i fry: '— Vk "'Q i rw-i. 3�.. ,oil . , r'r'?i a. i i ll r11 .G.' // " ./--4---?1 pe j ue.'-,& t ` % I i f le f , 4 \ic2e. ‘ PIA � Zv i' k' � \ 1 �� S e4 C4)--G?�. , �+(� l WYc "l `"'`1Cu� � f ) r, . ..tCA1n ITeleI1Q,1 ;.:_ 116 Cue tq 0e tos cjoc cif (1 06 i:,.... .J41 -. --t!V c.P��. k 'tic : 7 L4 4 1,6 L,iL{ t? i 1. iiii am: Ff\ IC/ 1%j �1 1 I (TWITS zky �i tpg1Z.1—r�' : � "IAlj{ (/ L2L;1 " 1, i' �, 1,1,1 >4 (lc' A / v cc, t k '� :� 3 <' (' �--I4- R TM4 tir k41; 41,1a • Petition summary and background The attached Los Gatos Citizens Oppo to Proposed Dev't 401-409 Alberto Report, which has been submitted to the Town of Los Gatos by Bob Burke on our behalf, explains why the Proposed Development does not meet the Los Gatos 2020 Development Plan and our other reasons for requesting a Denial. Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge The Planning Board and Town Council to DENY the Application. Printed Name Signature Address Comment - Date .0 < k-e,,.. l+A jL..A., i .. . l .t. lad C, L'IQJ [‘=- 0,2 Cam', Cy,t,; R/i I i b ;1yvati 14-AJ/10kb `c, . '4/✓1-4, po CLi_e:�k (, c te,4, (it:4c ° IPi;. '�k-G f1`-fAl. t-1, / F.L L -t ` / " I - t1/i L0 •c)e lc (4e'' /i � G �l )F+% ' G' 'C.� ' 4' L ci-s r1 O ( Lcf C'N-'�G'J 111 A /L..1pv r � l � cs i_ yi4/bI, t )s Y/ /67 _ \�oi1}t'•' I ��t t7�2 vLffi • U`/L, OA' `5Il I) 1(4, 9c10 r�I�J + 1 M l � � ir ; 4 - \ L C,�.e4„ ,k.L \,_,::.s (Iv.)0.5 , ( L()f• it jC....L S ,..%P. NAP IA L t 6r tAi'S4_51 l_iAl tt— t----4 C- i 'U5 i Uri i c ! ,fi fi 1e% L.1 (// 6 1 c V (Lt(t5ji ((...//- - I') r it< I t-k ( .1../4 r '"") 14E 4.'j Ki: /Iv 0..) exi-----(0.1%,,,-- tic rf( . &,((//.6 /.,-6, ,i,t446. ci:„:1-- s.. r1�f��, _.ri� 14.7 �� l-R� 1,' !�`,6Js'- _+ r .yffit. 1 ,��:{, .c,� „ � ' - n z`7 tl•�' lg4L=L;1 C7 � �; ''a;;.1 •, t =A,C., L )CI L e otijc w to the Town oi Los Gates to PLERMANENTLY R Y the kpficatuon ifov a Piro msecd. DewellopErnalt at 4 .-0ZUro Wa Petition summary and background Action petitioned for The attached report, which is being submitted by Bob Burke, explains why the Proposed Development does not meet the Los Gatos 2020 Development Plan and our other reasons for requesting a Permanent Denial. We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge The Planning Board and Town Council to PERMANENTLY DENY the Application. Printed Name Signature I Address Comment Date tli rid ruiEvip. --vi.Lios Licrs , cq LL, 4 .P.,C1 tiilla-5 I / ri � _ « ; LL f} ,Gay UC j !� 11y ��ivV'1 kad l-^1TJ--.t„7:'t: L i AL-fj?' 11", j (� 4 �! 1/ n" ley IL:t."-..t,i--) -k-kai ' 61-6 ildi,ek-i-t) ifvqL)--14-c, t iiicp . •-:::___--,) t$ L[Aib 4 l L l'I tiANymy, )1*-)\(4.?eia.cia- `AD-b -P:bEi7..\6 IS B -2-vto CA ik-N C.fiTNL`` `I-ao P ib 41" g • ►(f) firine,.,n,& ,= =--'5'-e---- — zA// r to , Li. ri j j ' (-) J U (1 or 'Z4)A.b ;7 "—e u sl i ; M r =a - os r.o DE 7N;). .Ckp .... 7 ' 4 .. 4111- • 1. Petition summary and background The attached Los Gatos Citizens Oppo to Proposed Dev't 401-409 Alberto Report, which has been submitted to the Town of Los Gatos by Bob Burke on our behalf, explains why the Proposed Development does not meet the Los Gatos 2020 Development Plan and our other reasons for requesting a Denial. Action petitioned for We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge The Planning Board and Town Council to DENY the Application. Printed Name Signature Address Co/mment Date L -�] / 1lLjr - LL. ,-- ,� 1 yy �/ — _^__ L C f 4, fj"�lj LfJ4j AIb 1 L'{,f' [} 'j4�w;1. y��ryy{1 �l ,'1 ; ' r I l i y , , 1 / � F' o ly � , Ylv j si'1f�Fi-I ///Y J` if ✓�, S t ie `L 1-y1 L' 1 7: 4.. .5 G. 4...)! F.r`. % i C' 4ii . • ( o f ! I_ c . d. (r- � ! t� 9i ./.. ,e s.7 / (4/16 ' . • „//e...>° Lk.:)...:-.) AVit . -b o/1 y `i, i- L ;,,t) (: yiyqs -,-a LL (.=t Tri ;, , -le_. 1 y �'/'F = 1 VL.1 , 1-r i" IA) Lit. 1 '13'5 {! ..._51.1,.'ID , .,0° ') " 6- L r, =ii'1,'�l, r. Y bt Vs- rt- C c-L -L. i I) /1 /1 i I/ , ft3 tf talikLo, f 44167 ,- l' 2-1/ 76. f r Printed Name Signature Address Comment Date ,/ , I e-la 16 ciix• .. �-%. lb CUeSfrelArkil Gke(4',, V 4/6 8 =2 /( ,ekes?/e E _ /.' /7 euc 47'7 Las ems' Contents i These Comments are from Residents and Members u/these H8As- 2 U. Qualifications Bob Burke, Author 2 Ui The PDdoes not Conform tothe Town ofbG202OGeneral Plan 2 ZO2UGeneral Plan Section 2:Vision 2 2O2OGeneral Plan Section 3:Land Use 9 Z020General Plan Section 4Community Design Element 4 LPAcquisitions, LLCillustration ofthe PCysBuildings ismideadin0... . S. Actual View ofthe PDfrom the Northeast with Story Poles S 302OGeneral Plan Section 6:Transportation 6 The PD's Transportation Impact Analysis contains Errors, Understates Trip Generation and is Missing Material info 6 The traffic Report clearly shows evidence that any Development in Los Gatos worsens already bad Hwy 17 Congestion 7 The Traffic Study asfiled contains errors, omissions & data too old touse 8 Existing Traffic Error in PDTnaffic Analysis: Alberto VVoy & Hwy-9 11 The PD Traffic Analysis describes the present E8 Hwy-9 AM Rush gridlock: 12 Raw Traffic Data Fdes from the May 12, 2015 Study have been deleted and are no longer available for scrutiny 14 Changes need hobemade tnthe Hvwyu'l7&9Intersection toprevent Gridlock 14 Approval means L5@[a1transpay for Changes tothe [A98^[A17Interchange 15 Sensitivity Study elements that need tubeadded 16 LP Acqu�sition LLC understates Traffic by presenting only the fewest employees and longest rush period 16 OMice6paceLayoutI-4Ol'4OSA|bertuRd=73Semp|oyeesvvithahi8h|y"Bficient[wxtom"|ayouC 18 Office Space Layout l-401'405Alberto Rd=505employees with an"Efficient Rule nfThumb" layout 18 Of0ccSpaceLayout3-401'4U5A|berLuRd=4ISemp|oyeesvvithu"Typica|Ru|eufThumb°|oyout 18 UfficeSpaceLayout4-401-4OSA|bertnRd=37Semp|oyees:^SpaciousRu|eofThomb^|ayout 19 Trip Count Sensitivity Study 19 Traffic into and out ofthe PDGarage will increase AK4 Hvvy'95piUbackthat extends tnUniversity 20 The PDGarage will cause intolerable AM &PMCongestion nnAlberto Way 28 20ZOGeneral Plan Section 9Environment And Swstainabx|i\yElement 20 203OGeneral Plan Section I0Noise Element ........ —..----'—.'---, 20 1. These Comments are from Residents and Members of these HOAs: Pueblo de Los Gatos (53 Units at 420 Alberto Way) directly across from the Proposed Development (PD) - The Commons (110 Units at 445 Alberto Way) Bella Vista (47 Townhomes in Bella Vista, just past 240 Alberto Way) - Las Casitas #4 (18 Townhomes at 435 Alberto Way) II. Qualifications - Bob Burke, Author BS-EE, MS-EE & MBA Waiting Line Theory and Traffic Engineering education both formal and on-the-job Electronic Network Traffic Engineering Current and Past High Tech Employers: AT&T, Cincinnati Bell, AVAYA, Alcatel -Lucent, Cisco, NETGEAR US Patents: 3 in Broadband Networking and three in Software Defined Networking, Content Distribution & Control Product Management- Networking Systems Four decades in Network Engineering Community Organizer for Water Proceedings at CPUC (volunteer) Former HOA President and Board Member (volunteer) Former Mutual Water Co Officer & Board Member (volunteer) III. The PD does not Conform to the Town of LG 2020 General Plan In each section below, we describe why. The Present Application cannot be approved. 2020 General Plan Section 2: Vision • Foster a pedestrian -oriented community with a small-town character; Alberto Way has two commercial properties at its intersection with Hwy-9 presently and one at the end. We have constant traffic issues with the speed of vehicles to and from the commercial property at the end. The principal problem is that the curve between 420 and 401-409 + 435 limits sight. When limited sight is combined with speed, there are frequent near misses. Residents from Alberto Way frequently walk to Town and must cross two dangerous Hwy 17 exit ramps. Foliage severely limits visibility to pedestrians and drivers, who cannot see pedestrians until they're within unsafe stopping distance. There is no Hwy 17 exit ramp accident record described within the EIR. The increased vehicular traffic generated by the PD disrupts our pedestrian use of both Hwy-9 and Alberto Way. We have a large population of children and seniors. There is no alternate Pedestrian or vehicular exit from Alberto way. Furthermore, the Proposed Development (PD) contains no provisions to address the disruption from higher vehicular traffic volume after completion nor the purported 15-16 month construction disruption. • Be a full -service community that is also environmentally sensitive; The increased vehicular traffic during and after construction will bring increased air pollution to Alberto Way. The construction itself will bring an increased level of air -borne allergens. 2020 General Plan Section 3: Land Use • The mandates of the Safety Element are reflected in the designation and location of land use, the permitted activities within designated areas, and the patterns of land use that support defensible space, the Town's contingency plan, and fire and other hazard mitigation. As noted our Vision comments, Pedestrian Safety is compromised both during construction since it blocks our use of the sidewalk in front of 401-409 and after occupancy with the increased danger to pedestrians from the additional traffic it generates. The PD contains no design element to address the dangers it generates to pedestrian safety. • Air quality is improved by land use patterns that minimize vehicle travel within the Town. The PD degrades air quality via the increased vehicular traffic it generates, a special threat to our seniors and children ♦ The Conservation Element goals address protecting and enhancing the natural environment. Programs that retain natural features such as tree preservation, limited grading, and water conservation maintain the natural character of Los Gatos. The PD removes many large mature trees & bushes, then replaces them with small ones. ♦ The Open Space Element refers to the location, character, and use of parks, recreational facilities, and preserved, unimproved land. The PD contains no significant open space that can be used recreationally by the public despite using about 1 of the 2+ acres for buildings. Distribution, location, and extent of land uses for categories of public or private uses. Such categories include, but are not limited to housing, business, industry, open space, natural resources, recreation and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, and public buildings and grounds. The PD is so high that it destroys the scenic beauty enjoyed by Alberto Way Residents, our Visitors, Best Western Guests and employees of the local businesses. Particularly hard hit are the 420 Alberto Way owners and residents whose "View Unit Condos" face Alberto Way; are along 420's South drive near Alberto Way; or are along the west side of 420's North Drive. All of these "View Units" have scenic, sunlit views today that the PD would, if built, remove. This situation also occurs at 435 Alberto where the PD not only blocks the N. building's scenic sunlit views but also affords PD's 2nd floor Tenants a view into their children's bedrooms. This will depress the market value of the "View Units," for which the PD does not propose to compensate owners. The PD furthermore attempts to remove about a dozen of "our" on -street parking spaces and LP Acquisitions, LLP declines in meetings with us to provide any substitute parking to Alberto Way Residents. We already have on -street parking congestion, which was made worse by the addition of Grill 57. All but 2 of 420 & 435 Alberto Way's Visitors and many of their Residents use on -street parking: the on -street parking was a design feature f Alberto Way. • Population density and building intensity standards for land use designations The PDs buildings are massive compared to what's there now and to the residential buildings in the area. Furthermore, LP Acquisitions, LLP understates the number of employees the buildings can hold at 350. In reality, they are capable of holding up to 746 and high tech companies are converting to the "bull pen" seating designs that allow this maximum number. The PD is therefore incompatible with the character of the Neighborhood and transform it from a low impact residential community in an open space tucked away in a wooded area to a "concrete & glass jungle" dominated by a large commercial space. 2020 General Plan Section 4 Community Design Element The Town Council & Planning Commission would have heard a lot more from Alberto Way residents had LP Acquisitions, LLC Development presented us with a rendering that was representative of the actual proposed structure earlier this year when it held the first round of community meetings. The PD does not conform to these Town of LG Policies: Policy CD-1.1 Building elements shall be in proportion with those traditionally in the neighborhood. At 93,000 sq. ft., the PDs buildings are massive compared to what's on the site now and what's in the neighborhood. They are further proposed to be built so high that they deny us continued enjoyment of the neighborhood's mountain views and depress property values in 420 Alberto Way's "View Units." The Proposed Development (PD) is furthermore a significant departure from many of the Town's 2020 General Plan goals, specifically: Policy CD-1.2 New structures, remodels, landscapes, and hardscapes shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area. Policy CD-1.4 Development on all elevations shall be of high quality design and construction, a positive addition to and compatible with the Town's ambiance. Development shall enhance the character and unique identity of existing commercial and/or residential neighborhoods. At the First community meeting, we were told by LP Acquisitions, LLC, in detail, that the largest structure would be about 5 feet taller than the current 2 story building on the back side of the main parking lot to the business complex. We were also told that the building adjacent to that building, on the Left side/HWY 9 side of the lot, would be added onto to meet the height of the other building. What has been showcased is multiple large structures, with one towering above them all up front on the street side, in addition to structures also scattered across the second lot on the "backside" of the main complex. This will be a headache, an eyesore and a safety hazard, amongst other things. Not until the Story Poles went up immediately across the street, did we, the residents of 420 Alberto Way, realize how far from "harmony and blending the LP Acquisitions, LLC illustration actually is. LP Acquisitions, LLC Illustration of the PD's Buildings is misleading ,iew froI i the nor heasi of Site 1pon completion. While LP Acquisitions, LLC accurately disclosed the construction as —93K square feet, this illustration, both shown to us as a large graphic in the first meeting that LP Acquisitions, LLC called and placed on its web site is so far from an accurate depiction that we consider it to be intentional deception. The structure that they have demonstrated with the story poles is not at all what was communicated to those of us who attended the initial Open House and town meeting last year... they have pulled what we consider a classic "bait and switch." The PD is massive, would dominate the neighborhood, destroy our pleasant residential setting and our view. Here is the present Story Pole View taken as 3 photos showing the PD buildings: First photo shows the left side and the second photo is the right side of 401-409 Alberto from 420 Alberto, across the street. Actual View of the PD from the Northeast with Story, Poles 2020 General Plan Section 6: Transportation The PD's Transportation Impact Analysis contains Errors, Understates Trip Generation and is Missing Material Info The PD can generate 4x-8x the Peak Vehicle Traffic vs. LP Acquisitions, LLC's Traffic Report and LP Acquisitions, LLC shows no sensitivity traffic study ♦ Roadway System and Standards: Definitions and descriptions of the types of roadways and service standards for Los Gatos. The PD's traffic study incorrectly illustrates the Peak Traffic (Jams) at the Alberto Way & Hwy 9 Intersection. This is discussed below. • Existing Transportation Conditions: A description of traffic operations in Los Gatos. The PD contains no Peak Period vehicle flow chart for the intersection of Hyw-17 & Hwy-9 and fails to show the Full Peak Period traffic count at Hwy-9 & Alberto, either as a result or deliberately in combination. This is a condition of great importance in the PDs approval. The Alberto & HWY-9 intersection, as well as Hwy-9 intersections with LGB, Hwy-17, University and Santa Cruz are plagued with traffic jams in both Am and PM Rush Periods. This is discussed below. ♦ Other Transportation Networks and Facilities: Descriptions of bikeways and trails, truck routes, rail, bus, paratransit, parking facilities, and pedestrian facilities. The PD proposes no addition to the trailway system, which it could, to improve pedestrian passage over Hwy-17. Furthermore, the current Hwy-17 Rail replacement will, if a sidewalk is placed and used by pedestrians, still require pedestrians to cross dangerous and mostly blind freeway exits. The PD elevates Hwy-17 Traffic thereby increasing the danger to pedestrians as they cross the Hwy-17 entrance and particularly exit lanes. • Planned and Proposed Transportation Improvements: Descriptions of planned and proposed transportation improvements for regional and local transportation infrastructure in Los Gatos. The PD fails to note the serious implications that the absence of any Caltrans Project to renovate or replace the Hwy- .17 & Hwy-9 Intersection. The traffic generated by the PD will push the Peak to unacceptable levels. The Peak, when fully calculated taking into account the ACTUAL sum of Vehicles entering the Intersection will push the Hwy-9 & Alberto intersection from its current LOS, which is not presently a "B" as mis-represented in the Traffic Analysis to an even more that fully congested level. The PD will cause Gridlock. This is fully discussed & illustrated below. The PD, if Built, will permanently disable the Hwy-17 & Hwy-9 intersection 's future replacement or renovation by Caltran due to its inordinately costly requirement to condemn, purchase and remove a significant portion of the PD, particularly the proposed 400 Alberto Way. Hwy-17 has been named one on California's most dangerous roads due to its high traffic volume and its condition The Hwy-17 & Hwy-9 intersection was one of the earliest freeway intersections built in the US. Designed in the late 1930's and completed circa 1941, it was part of the Hwy-17 WW-II defense construction intended to defend us against Japanese invasion. The beaches of Monterey Bay are perfect amphibious landing zones, unlike much of the Bay area coast. Concurrent with Hwy-17's completion, all the Santa Cruz Mountain tunnels were dynamited closed to prevent the rail's use by invasion forces. The Hwy-9 & Hwy-17 Intersection is in present need of renovation to convert the single lane sections on both ends to two lanes in each direction. The PD leaves insufficient empty land to enable this with incurring extreme cost. The Town of Los Gatos must require that a renovation or replacement is completed prior to start of the PDs construction. i Goals, Policies, and Actions: A list of goal, policy, and action statements that are intended to improve transportation and circulation in Los Gatos. As filed by LP Acquisitions, LLC, the PD generates more Traffic than the residential apartment PD in the North 40 that was recently denied by the Planning Commission. Furthermore, LP Acquisitions, LLC misrepresented to us in community meetings that the Town of LG conducted the traffic study. Hexagon's report identified that Lamb (not LP Acquisitions, LLC) was its client, not the Town and verified this when interviewed (011ie Zhou). The traffic Report clearly shows evidence that any Development in Los Gatos worsens already bad Hwy 17 Congestion This Freeway Capacity and Level of Service grading table alone shows how bad the Los Gatos Area Hwy 17 is congested and is alone enough to prove that the Planned Development should be permanently rejected, along with all other developments in Los Gatos until Hwy 17 is widened by 1-2 lanes in each direction from 'A mile N of Hwy 85 to at least Bear Creek Rd: and its intersections is improved. Pushing either or both rush hours to worse E or F Levels of Service, which are already unacceptable, is sheer folly, Hwy-17 accidents hit their highest level in decades: http://www.merculynews,comibav-area-news/ci 28416215/crashes-highway-17-at-highest-level-decade and Los Gatos traffic is at new heights, especially when School is in session. Note how bad the Level of Service LOS) is on both sides of LG-Saratoga, Hhwy-9, on Hwy-17: The PD Traffic Analysis understates Peak trips it generates and also fails to show the full number of exits & entrances between Hwy-9 & Hwy-17 as illustrated in its Table from Page 19, Figure 7 of its' Traffic Analysis shown below after "Existing Traffic Volumes" below or the Intersection's LOS shown in its Table 4. We're stunned that this wasn't caught before now. Table 2 Freeway Segment Capacity Evaluation Pe* it or 1 Pr Elect % or tsar Lama Celecti LoS Tripe' cii cIv bored u 7 ee r CT• 2 -SartsgaPig NB Aril 2 4#11$ Fro 2 4420 .1;14117 Ltrz GZDE-L'Efattg2 t Lam ha sie ,+4.1 2 440 PrI 2 4At0 "'a Last f+.* t LCa ;.1V.3s-is-M7g3iRt 4.S5 Ai.1 2 4420 esi ^? Lrt G 5vdi3 - a'r R.". PM 2 4400 M 1 2 34L33 Ftf1 2 4 AIM 26 C39? NO 1L00Si NO 4gNO 42 C$5 NO 62 1.1 ei_,, NC) USIA NO C.Ort NO 21 C.451b NO 1. Etst .TT 'teem Do- ItD i reVerced Cara 'a.,ei 7:r .nA7c. lz—t =vestal Jih"!ti 'Rt P-iy^_a 1, t-" ."tgMay , 2014. 2. ..p.>ti s are esrlzutlarearuititlp ass` sr n;.ert. Furthermore, as we show in section b: the Traffic Study as submitted contains significant errors & omissions. They work to the Applicant's favor in failing to correctly present the existing traffic and the new traffic generated by the PD. Busy Period trips both existing and generated by the PD are underestimated in the report to the maximum extent possible and in reality the BH trips generated will be many times greater after the PD is occupied, This PD will adversely affect all residents in the Town of Los Gatos and its extraterrestrial community of interest which extends south to include all who reside within the LG-Saratoga HS District. The Traffic Study as filed contains errors, omissions & data too old to use Since the Traffic Study's Delay figures are far lower than those we and others we know in Los Gatos encounter, we interviewed 011ie Zhou of Hexagon on July 26 about certain aspects of the traffic report that pertain to the Avg Delay, Level of Service & Flow Counts. In community meetings, LP Acquisitions, LLC stated that the Avg Delay was for an entire day. Mr. Zhou asserts that the Avg Delay is computed for the Busy Hour (7:30-8:30AM and 5-6PM). No attempt was made to track counts within 10 to 15 minute intervals during the busy hour for use in computing Peak Average Delay. When asked what dates the traffic counts were made, Mr. Zhou represented there as May 12, 2015 for the non- CA 17 studies and that Hexagon did not perform any CA17 or CA17 entrance or exit traffic count study: the traffic data came from an August 2013 Caltrans study that was made while Los Gatos schools were not in session. This is in contrast to this statement that Lam placed in the Traffic Report: Existing Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes were obtained from new traffic counts concluded in January and May 2015, and the 2C14 VTA's CMP TRAFFIX database. The existing traffic volumes at the study intersections include the traffic being generated by the existing buildings on the sde. The existing AM and PM peak hour z"ttersection volumes are shown graphically on Figure 6. The traffic count data ate included in Appendix A. When asked who counted the traffic on May 12, Mr Zhou represented that the traffic is counted by software that is run against the camera(s) monitoring the intersection at Alberto & CA9. Hexagon hired IDAX to do the traffic count and h software that IDAX used, however, he suspects it id Miovision. An interview with Mr. Mark Skaggs at IDAX confirms they did the job. Mr. Skaggs represented that his California Manager is out of town for the next 2 weeks and that Mr. Skaggs cannot verify if IDAX used video recording with software analysis or manual traffic counting for this job. He did confirm that they did the job. We recall seeing the rubber hose pneumatic traffic counters in the roadway at Alberto & Hwy 9 in May 2015. It was not a job done with Video Recording and Software based counting. Here are two "poster child" Errors and Outages in the PD'sTrafftc Analysis Looking at 3 in the following 2 diagrams, we will add the current & future vehicle counts entering & exiting Alberto Way in the AM & PM and then compare them to Table 6 below: 401 Alberto Way - Transportation Impact Analysis 1 zgE Samisp 4)1 :52(3' 5) 4TTw73Ttt-_s 84;11i3}-Z I—17i(9T) 4-1Lci£;465) 220(243) F 3 Mel t-11(23' 4-941082) 5(13) 766(197 — 22(34) - 4 5 CaboaR 4441 324{519)-1' 517(335)- 4 7:0- 4-21 :149) Figure 6: PDs Existing Traffic Analysis on un-numbered page 14 (above) Intersections & Peak Flows; Alberto & Hwy-9 does not balance when the flows from Hwy-17 are included. The intersection of Hwy-17 & Hwy-9 is MIA from this Illustration. Its flow chart is needed to complete the study and its absence is suspicious. 401 Alberto Way - Transportation Impact Analysis r Get:R- U.0.RM 4)1(, 1 2 z7, 193 354)� 461(745)-4 84 165)-4. 't- ;54156 4-867 392) 4-165292) I ..•TN� N- 2 E3 4'1( (f 93)—. 56( Z "t-179(101) 4— 1110j500j 4-229(243) 3 4a 41 I (4 If a .— , 86) —5(19) 4 �c.l— .�.� ') j RA 5 Q < N°"4a +a 1 i+ 4 z 11) �1218(152) 70((77 — 805i621 —i 332(535( + ♦! 0 2j -. { 1 I , R" 221344. 518(347)Z RE 31(12) a S4 Figure 7: PDs Existing + Proposed Traffic Analysis page 19 (above) Intersections & Peak Flows: Alberto & Hwy-9 does not balance when the flows from Hwy-17 are included. The Hwy-17 & Hwy-9 is also an MIA intersection from this Illustration. Its flow chart is needed to complete the study and its absence is also suspicious. When these two Peak Hour traffic flow diagrams are viewed together on the same page with the Trip Count the PD proposes, it's clear that the PDs Traffic Analysis did not use the Peak Hour Trip Generation in its Table 6 below to assemble the "Proposed + Existing" trip count and LOS illustrations: they either erred or just made them up. Looking at AM trips into Alberto Way: Existing = 81 (69+11) and Proposed = 82 (70+12). But the added trip count is far greater in Table 6 below, which shows added Peak Trips into the PD are 130 in the AM. So based on Table 6, Proposed AM trips into Alberto Way = 211 (81 existing +130 extra) vs. the 1 added trip shown in the traffic flow diagrams in Figure 7! Likewise, Looking at PM trips exiting Alberto Way: Existing = 103 (32+71) and Proposed = 111 (75+36). But the added trip count is far greater in Table 6 below, which shows added Peak Trips into the PD are 102 in the PM. So based on Table 6, Proposed PM trips into Alberto Way = 208 (103 existing +105 extra) vs. the 8 added trips shown in the traffic flow diagrams in Figure 7! Table 6 Trip Generation Summary Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Daily Size Uitit Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Project Office Existing Sate Driveway Counts` Office Project Trips net Driveway Counts 93.5 ksf 11J03 1,031 1.94 159 22 181 1.96 31 152 183 30.0 kst 11.03 (331) 700 (29) (13) (42) 130 9 139 (34) (47) (81) (3) 105 102 Notes" Ai rates are torn: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 91ti Edition 1. Land Use Code 710: General (ice Building (a►erag rates for daily trips, fitted curve equation for peak hour trips. expressed in trips per 1,000 s.f.) 2. Existing site drive Vraycounts are based on driieway counts conducted on ? ay5. 2015 during both the M (7-9 AM) and PM (4-6 PM) peak hours of commute traffic. Dallytrips are estimated for existing orrice use using the dailytrip generation rate for General Office Building (average rates. expressed in trps per 1,000 sirs) Turning now, to the AM Eastbound Hwy-9 & Alberto Rush Hour Traffic: The PDs Traffic Analysis Table 4: (below) shows only the Hwy-17 to Hwy-9 Traffic Flows that exit Hwy-17 to Eastbound Hwy-9: the other half, EB & WB Hwy-9 to Hwy-17 are MIA from this table: The MIA traffic flows are needed to complete the traffic study and their absence is suspicious. After Table 4, we show the EB Hwy-9 AM Rush error for the Existing Traffic. SR 17 Les Gads - SE urrrarr p m lfe Los G-Sam:op Rd £aratcga F;c Table 4 Existing Freeway Ramp Analysis kites -than Ramp Twe Es mting C ontitons Peak lbw Capacly' Volume x VIC NB on -ramp from %%B Los Gat* Sa 77.Itd Diageni AtA9 2020 17,t3lr PM 2000 10'.7 OJT, Loop AL! leap 124 Cti Pt 1 1200 572 227 NS off-rar"oc E Les Gatos- rpa Rd Diana At: 2000 37p .' PA 2C00 125 0.t SE eramp to ES s S3-aLecp PL1 1200 18QC 759 Ott 0.42 Notes: t . Ramp caza, bes Were otta"lam tem :_ a ii r ayCapacty; .:a' 20= and cens idered the free-'fo4 speed and tre menber o` a^es to the ramp. 2. Eks ng peak hour xa' rnes are ebtined f•crn persona r mrn..vt eaten ell Ult.-ens sta Jorca- Chan on Se°~.ernb 17, 20l Existing Traffic Error in PD Traffic Analysis: Alberto Way & Hwy-9 This is an example that illustrates the point. AM Rush Hour Eastbound Hwy- 9 (LGS Rd) count of vehicles arriving at the Alberto Way intersection: Existing vehicles entering the EB Hwy-9 Intersection at Alberto Way as shown in the Traffic Study's Figure 6 above, for the intersection of CA-9 & Alberto page 14 figure 6 = 796+69+22 = 887 Vs: Sum of EB Vehicles arriving at the Hwy-9 & Alberto Intersection after exiting from CA-17NB to CA-9EB + CA 17S to CA9EB shown in Table 4+Vehicles leaving University EB on CA9 from Figure 6: = 379 (NB CA17 to EB9) + 1103 (SB17 to EB9) + 944 (from University) = 2,372 This is lower than present traffic since Table 6 uses the old 2013 NB & SB CA-17 to EB9 Caltrans Counts obtained from Jordan Chan 9-17-15 as stated by Hexagon's 011ie Zhou. PM Rush Hour Eastbound CA 9 (LGS Rd1 count of vehicles arriving at the Alberto Way intersection: Shown in the Traffic Study, for the intersection of CA-9 & Alberto figure 6 = (68+807+34) = 909 Vs: Sum of Vehicles entering the CA9EB & Alberto Intersection exiting from CA-17NB to CA-9EB + CA 17S to CA9EB + Leaving University EB on CA9 = 125 + 758 + 1193 (leaves Univ: 35 + 1048 + 94) = 2,076 There is no Table in the report that contains the EB Hwy 9 count of vehicles leaving University that exit from HWY-9 to Hwy 17 South or North, figures that are needed to fact check the EB Hwy 9 traffic that is reported to flows from Hwy-17 to Alberto. These exits are the only missing data, a too convenient omission. This appears to be a deliberate omission. It further appears that revised pages 13 & 14 were pasted into the Appendix H Traffic Analysis without re -paginating, an observation we find suspicious and we wonder if the originals showed the much higher traffic flows we expect based on the Hwy-17 Rush Hour Exits to Hwy-9. If the Town does not permanently reject The Proposed Development, the Traffic Study must be re -done with updated 2016 Hwy-17 freeway traffic shortly after the start of the LG local school sessions in late August / early September. The PD Traffic Analysis describes the present EB Hwy-9 AM Rush gridlock: Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road During the AM peak period, heavy traffic volume was observed only on the eastbound leg of Los Gatos - Saratoga Road. There was spilliack from the downstream intersection on Las Gatos -Saratoga Road at Los Gatos Boulevard. As a result, the inner eastbound through lane on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road queues to the SR 17 sauthbound on -ramp, and the outer eastbound through lane on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road queues onto the SR 17 northbound off -ramp. Because of the spillback issue from Los Gatos Boulevard. the eastbound through movement on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road requires several signal cycles to clear the queue. During the PM peak period, the westbound through movement on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road reeves moderate queues that extend toward the location of the Bela Vista Avenue overpass, but all clear within one signal cycle_ No other operational issues were observed_ In addition to the highly errored count of EB Hwy-17 arrivals shown above, since the Eastbound Hwy-9 spillback backs up from LG Blvd to block the exit to NB Hwy-17, it means that the Level of Service at Alberto Way cannot be a "B" nor any better than LGB or Hwy-17, which is not addressed at all. All Los Gatos Residents who use EB Hwy-9 in the AM Rush are acutely aware of the congestion. Furthermore, LP Acquisitions, LLP fails to note in this description that CA-9 has its right hand lane blocked at each end of the HWY-17 Overpass, is one lane immediately before and after the overpass or that the PD will generate enough traffic to make the gridlock much worse during the rush period: Los Gatos -Saratoga Road (SR 9) s a four lane arterial roadway adjacent to the project site. It extends from Los Gatos Boulevard in a northwesterly direction. At the town boundary of Los Gatos and Monte Serena, it changes name to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Saratoga -Los Gatos Road transitions to Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road at the intersection of Sig Basin Way (which is the continuation of SR 9) and Saratoga Avenue. Los Gatos -Saratoga Rosa has a mean that begins east of the SR 17 interchange and continues to Massol Avenue_ Los Gatos -Saratoga Road forms the southern boundary of the project site. And with Alberto's placement on Hwy-9 between University and LG Blvd, whose LOSs are shown below from Tables 5 & 8 to be C and D respectively, the Alberto & Hwy-9 intersection is surely not a "B" LOS either "now" or "as proposed." Table 5 Background Intersection Levels of Service Summary Study Number Intersection Existing Background Avg. Peak Delay Hour (sec) Avg. Delay LOS (sec) LOS 1 N. Santa CruzA e & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd ° AM 47.3 D 48.0 D PM 372 D 38.1 D 2 UniversityAve & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd fi Artl 34.5 C 34.8 C PM 30.8 C 35.8 C 3 Alberto Way & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM 112 B 112 $ PM 12.4 B 12.8 B 4 Los Gatos Blvd & Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd AM 22.8 C 232 C PM 24.3 C 252 C 5 Los Gatos Blvd 8 Caldwell Ave/Kennedy Rd AM 372 D 38.8 D PM 24.4 C 26.3 C Notes: Denotes CW intersection Table 6 8at$ttrou3 d piuc Project In erceottan Le1ec cf Sere -ea Soma ,) Soft MLrl ss kip& Wetarame s eise • A*. MO. tier.* Pest Coley Coley Ciek. tied► los. K Neu boo) LOS LOS t Cot WC 1 Iteumbeivtikisiiiirreoloiesititive 1 s • AM sw 11 Li 17 L 1j ti is to: G i ° oil NI , 3.0 4411b I' Ls L 11 i+ tC 1 :,nvim Itiirrt IL. L:dno•1rterIa r h:' R 3I L C 1 -1? C [l. 01!`17 1 1f :A: e C 90 7 C; D 1 i1 L�:': **Voris orY& w v em it•:,/crt:1,1e ': 1 AM i' t, 7 q A x 4 l+ T, `:. r1i t: Tb/ tt• 'L+ 131119t 4 1. cm :.:iirta 11 b: 1ft i vY 1.16.1:..:.'r vit, rc 1.1. AM :: 9 : L i.".t 5 13 1 ri la: 1'V ; l :5i L 1F;° 0W7 1 1.4 v' 1. r 5 t, I. ti w 1,,1,..'_ Raw 'Traffic Data Files from the May 12, 2015 Study have been deleted and are no longer available for scrutiny We interviewed Mr. Mark Skaggs at IDAX, the company that Hexagon hired to do the Intersection level traffic study. He said the counts may or may not have been done via video recordings and Miovision software analysis. When asked for a copy of the Videos IDAX took during the traffic count study, he disclosed that if they used video counts, they had already deleted the video files. We object to this Traffic Analysis use as a basis to even vote on this PD. The results of the Traffic Study differ so far from our daily reality for the Study to be true, especially when school is in session. Changes need to be made to the Hwys-17 & 9 Intersection to prevent Gridiock Rush traffic from the higher than shown by LP Acquisitions, LLC vehicle counts from the PD would back vehicles waiting for left turn into Alberto from EB Hwy-9 up far enough as block the current EB exits from Hwy 17 on to Hwy 9. Regardless of Left Turn Signal Timing, not all the left turners will make it into the left turn lane and they will then jam the current single lane approach, backing traffic up on N and S Hwy 17 worse than currently occurs. Here is an illustration of how the Intersection needs to be modified: - Extend the current HWY 9 right hand lanes from between where they end at the loops Alberto to unblock the congestion the two short single lane sections cause. This allows enough room to extend the Eastbound HWY 9 left turn lane into Alberto Way - Reconfigure the Hwy-17 N to Hwy 9 diagonal so that it merges closer to the light at Alberto to allow Hwy-9 Eastbound vehicles to move around the left turners at peak rush when the extended left turn lane is filled. Extend the Hwy-17 Ramp so it enters Hwy-9 closer to Alberto. Re -configure the Hwy-17N to Hwy-9 West loop as well as the Hwy-9 West to Hwy-17N diagonal to allow Hwy-17 to Hwy-9 traffic to safely enter HWY-9 The simple red Imes outline the changes. Toth Add hide Googie Earth FY. Edit Y. • Search • Lapell brllsGaie y )> onmaryoN.au. v' CO Vga.,, fr6Y Rwden and1.belt Ek' Pieces .^� e a Ptw.en lr Eit3oBuading,. EC. Oft, a D { W.I.., P. 0* Galley w Cw,G.b.:Aveammess ❑I Mw. Wend 7,UYve, 1 ere. Approval means LG & Caltrans pay for Changes to the CA9 & CA17 Interchange Since there are significant errors and omissions in the traffic study and no sensitivity study, approval would leave the Town of Los Gatos and Caltrans holding the bag for Infrastructure triggered by the PD should its tenants not build out to the minimalist number of employees as touted by LP Acquisitions, LLC and all future un-known or un-disclosed Traffic and in specific for the rebuild needed to the SE and SW quadrants of the CA9 - CA17 interchange when the PD predictably generates gridlock and subsequently causes the early deaths of Seniors living on Alberto. There is a large population of Seniors and frequent EMS dispatches. The most important change is needed between the end of the CA 17 Overpass and Alberto Way, The East Bound CA 9 right hand lane ends at the East side of the CA17 overpass where the second lane is actually the entrance ramp to CA17 North. CA9 is only one lane for 175-200 hundred feet until the CA17 SB exit enters CA9 EB. Before the CA17 Overpass, the second lane of EB CA9 becomes the entrance lane to CA17 SB and CA9 is one lane up to the point where the CA19 SB exit enters CA9EB. This area of CA9 from the CA17 Overpass to Los Gatos Blvd (LGB) as well as North & South on LGB for 1/2 - 1 mile are highly congested in every AM Rush Period during the school year. Since the added traffic from the 401-409 Alberto Way occurs during the school rush, there will be frequent gridlock due to the absence of the second lane from the end of the CA17 Overpass to the Tight at Alberto Way. The CA17 Overpass needs a renovation to handle the additional traffic. Only by widening CA9 to two lanes and extending the EB9 to Alberto left turn lane for 200-250 feet can gridlock be avoided. It must further be combined with closely managed signal timing changes from University to LGB. This gridlock would need to be avoided by renovating the CA9 - CA17 intersection in advance of the start of any construction so as not to cause an early death of anyone within the large senior population on Alberto Way (in all four developments). The closest EMS personnel are dispatched from the Fire Station on University. Now to address the other source of AM Congestion not discussed rn any Traffic Report by either the Town of LG or LP Acquisitions, LLC Partners: SB17 traffic is already congested and backed up at both CA 9 exits (EB & WB) on many mornings by the LG workers Rush. It is our observation that the CA17 & CA9 intersection needs to be rebuilt and that no improvements should be allowed on any properties adjacent to the intersection until this is thoroughly vetted with CalTrans. Allowing this PD would add millions to the intersection renovation when it would need to be demolished within a few short years for LG & Saratoga Area decongestion. Sensitivity Study elements that need to be added At 92,000 (+/-) square feet, the PD has the capacity to house as many as 746 employees and as few as the 350 that LP Acquisitions, LLC proposes. The peak traffic generated by the 1 or 2 large high tech tenants Lam targets is more likely to be spread over a Peak % or 1/2 Hour rather than the 2 hour Rush that Lam presents. Lam asserts that that many of the Employees in the PD will not be driving to the PD and will instead use busses and that the Tenant or two will not have any specific required work start time. This is folly if the targeted tenants are really 1-2 high tech companies. Lam does not understand that the large high tech companies it targets have pre -defined work hours that generate 30 to 45 minute peak traffic intervals. Typical is that a company with an 8:30 start time: at 8AM the parking lot is nearly empty and by 8:30AM it's nearly full, And vice versa full at 5PM quitting time and nearly empty at 5:30PM. LP Acquisition LLC understates Traffic by presenting only the fewest employees and longest rush period This is a well known phenomenon amongst those of us who traffic engineer high tech networks. The lower the traffic and the longer the peak demand is averaged, the better the overall traffic LOS appears while at the same time, the LOS during the Peak is still awful. So we use very small time periods over which to evaluate the peaks. When applied to Vehicular Traffic, the better measure of Peak Period LOS is more like count the traffic flows and calculate the LOS for every 5 or 10 minute interval and report on them. If the phone network was done LP Acquisition LLC's way, you'd wait for 1 second to hear dial tone at 1AM and 4 minutes at 10AM! This also appears to be a flaw in the ITE's methodology. With no sensitivity study of the trips generated by the complete range of employees occupying the PD and of the width in minutes of the Peak Period, there is no known limit to the Peak Traffic nor the "to be generated Infrastructure Capex needed to be made long after LP Acquisition LLC has completed the construction, sold the building and left" the Town of Los Gatos holding the Capex bag and its Residents all over Town steaming in the congestion caused by not requiring Infrastructure First. LP Acquisition LLC told residents of 420 Alberto that the PD contains 350 parking spaces and told the Commons its 390 spaces. LP Acquisition LLC proposes to remove about a dozen spaces from our street parking and making none of the PD parking available to Alberto Way residents or visitors. We object. We disagree and note that an official work start time compresses the rush hour into 15-30 minute windows. These assertions are not based in fact: in the 2 meetings we've had with LP Acquisitions, LLC, it represents that it has no idea who the initial Tenant is and purely arguing based on speculation. However, those of us who work in Silicon Valley high tech companies see these trends which drive down the space per employee: employers are re -designing the offices to reduce the square footage occupied by each employee - size the building and its parking to accommodate "telecommuting employees" use of personal video conferencing is reducing the demand for conference rooms According to many available sources, including those that follow and in keeping with the experience of our residents who work at Silicon Valley high tech companies are having, the trend of space per employee is in a downward spiral. These are the hyperlinks to them: http://www.bdcnetwork.com/corenet-office-space-worker-shrinks-150-sf http://www.naiop.org/en/Magazine/2015/Spring-2015/Business-Trends/Trends-i n-Square-Feet-per-Office- Employee.aspx Below side -by -side photos of a bull pen seating space in the recently renovated Cisco San Jose Building J on Tasman, in which each employee occupies 40 square feet. In two meetings with us, LP Acquisitions, LLC claims that the PD will generate 181 or 183 busy hour trips from what it claims to be a maximum of 350 employees in the building (260 square feet / employee). With worldwide Office Space / employee at 150 sq ft, US is at 191 sq ft / employee in 2014 and shrinking and there are more likely to be over 500 and as many as 735 employees as the OfficeFinder Detailed Calculator shows below: https://www.officefinder.com/officespacecalc.html Office Space Layout 1- 401-405 Alberto Rd = 735 employees with a highly „Efficient Custom" layout. Detailed Calculation Method President's: 1 Vice President's: 9 Executive's: 25 Partitioned Open Space: 220 Open Area Bullpen: 480 Conference Rooms: 16 32 16 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Mail/Work Rooms: 10 Reception Area: 2 File Rooms: 4 Library: 20 Lunch Rooms: 50 Coffee Bars: 6 Usable Square Footage Indicated: 93562 sf Powered by: 4 i ,fir ... DFFICEtvEt l° 1NFORI19AtPDN AND DEFERRAL ILEM1dRR Office Space Layout 2 - 401-405 Alberto Rd = 505 employees with an "efficient Rule of Thumb" layout. Rule of Thumb Method Number of Employees: 505 Layout Efficiency: Efficient Extraordinary Space: 0 sf Usable Square Footage Indicated: 93425 sf Powered by: rx QFFICEFINDER° IN1U Fa1RMIDN AND FIFFFNAI tdlI ONN Office Space Layout 3 - 401-405 Alberto Rd = 425 employees with a "Typical Rule of Thumb" layout Rule of Thumb Method Number of Employees: 425 Layout Efficiency: Typical Extraordinary Space: 0 sf Usable Square Footage Indicated: 93500 sf Powered by: r, ,.-1,_n.. OFFICEFINQEA° INFORPAliOh, ANZ PI1!F1:AI fie( ' Office Space Layout 4 — 401-405 Alberto Rd = 375 employees: ""Spacious Rule of Thumb" layout This is about what LP Acquisitions, LLC assumes in its 350 employee occupancy estimate. Rule of Thumb Method Number of Employees: 375 Layout Efficiency: Spacious Extraordinary Space: 0 sf Usable Square Footage Indicated: 93750 sf Powered by: OFFICE FINDER° IMFum....)t tIJ AMA F;l-EF1#Al N;116"I'.Wi Trip Count Sensitivity Study LP Acquisitions, LLC's traffic generation assertions conveniently omit the sensitivity study which are easily calculated by compressing the trips generated by the much more likely larger number of employees compressed into a more likely 30 - 45 minute wide "busy % or' hour" as employees at companies with set starting times for the start of business. Here is what's omitted. For LG to make a decision without it would be highly undesirable for the Residents of the Town of LG who will suffer deeper traffic inconvenient that today until the financially risky improvements are made by The Town itself to deal with the traffic by making costly widening to LG Blvd so its capacity can wick the AM Eastbound flow from Hwy-9 and very expensive for CalTrans in the renovation or replacement of the Hwy-9 & Hwy-17 intersection The table below should be used to compute the LOS and Impact on the other Intersection in Town and along 17 in any future traffic study revision. This has not been changed to correct it to the number of incremental trips from Applicant's Table 6 above. Maximum Possible additional trip generation by the Proposed Development. 2 hours as filed (Least Possible Traffic) I 2 1 hour Rush 1 45 minute Rush (most likely rushtime) 1 0.75 30minute Rush I 0.5 ^�1 is @i i.5-V�dh,'�'4 f}P,i.ga ?l Jail 4i'a}'i1 i��ii:7r;.41) 3ray- 8P!'1., ' r� 4.- llT`t l i;A 7l ,a.; , a i•J.,/- , .1:)r.011. r_a'd=41 3(gi.I 1 .11•40 - Z3lifa•1 F. i914:.1-1 ., It-13- ,.,.,Flit , 42 81. 159, 21 31. 152 _ 318 42 62 304 424 56 83 405 636 84 124 608 4.i1ffk.T.1.L il]ir14 swiDriPp14;- 74•11.10, gar 334 44 65 319 668 33 130 536 — 890 118 _ 174 851 1336i 176 260 1277 Traffic into and out of the PD Garage will increase AM Hwy-9 Spillback that extends to University The underground garage as proposed has one two-lane driveway. At any level of Peak Period trips, there will be spillback both into and out of the garage. Am Rush will be problematic by will extending Hwy-9 EB Spillback to University. Hwy-9 already has deep spillback from Los Gatos Blvd. PM Rush will see the bulk contained within the Garage. The PD Garage will cause intolerable AM & PM Congestion on Alberto Way The single Garage Driveway spillback will delay AM & PM exits from the Best Western and 420 Alberto's South drive Hwy-9 during Peak traffic periods. It will furthermore delay AM entrances by current Alberto residents. 2020 General Plan Section 9 Environment And Sustainability Element Our Response: The PDs Preliminary Environmental Assessment mentions no measures that the Applicant plans to take to protect Air or Water quality during or after the construction. 2020 General Plan Section 10 Noise Element Policy N01-1.1 The Town, as part of the Environmental Review process, shall require applicants to submit an acoustical analysis of projects. All input related to noise levels shall use the adopted standard of measurement shown in Table NO!-2. Noise impacts of new development shall be evaluated in terms of any increase of the existing ambient noise levels and the potential for adverse noise and ground borne vibrations impacts on nearby or adjacent properties. The evaluation shall consider short-term construction noise and on -going operational noise. Our Response: 420 & 435 Alberto Way have several "work at home" residents. The PD as submitted proposes no alternate office measures for them during construction. IV. Conclusion: Please deny the Application Jennifer Armer From: Victoriya Rufanova <rufavic@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 10:03 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Planning; jpeterson@bayareanewsgroup.com Subject: AGAINST ***Proposed Construction / Development project on 401- 405 Alberto Way (near Los Gatos Saratoga Road / HWY 9 and HWY 17 / East Los Gatos Exit)*** Dear Jennifer, As Los Gatos resident of Alberto way street 1 want to express my deepest concerns and opposition against of recently proposed Construction / Development project on 401- 405 Alberto Way. After careful consideration of materials on www.401 albertoway.com it seems like the project does not take into account needs of current residents. Traffic, privacy and day-to-day accommodation for elderly and younger neighbors are not properly addressed. With expected size of the project (about 400 new cars for small space of Alberto way and new building about 90,000 sq.ft) and almost 2 years to complete it will be extremely unsafe for kids and older residents to use their everyday routs to schools and surrounding parks, library, downtown businesses. Increased amount construction and business traffic will make morning school route out of Alberto way toward Van Meter Elementary, Fisher Middle and High schools for at least 40 kids very dangerous since there are no adequate pedestrian way away from proposed construction and traffic on Saratoga Los Gatos Rd. As Transportation Impact Analysis indicates there are no good bike trail in or out Alberto way for less then experienced cyclists. This situation will become worse for elementary and middle school students using bikes or waking to school daily as soon as project will start. Currently, walkway on Saratoga Los Gatos Rd is very unsafe. The pedestrian side way is very narrow, goes steep uphill, and too close to car road. Some part of walkway has quite uneven pavement that presents a tripping hazard. The side way is only on one part of the road and there is neither bike lane nor lawn to separate the pedestrian part from the car road. The road itself is especially extremely busy at the morning hours with all two lanes of the cars rushing down to HW 17. There is a true danger of getting right on the road in front of the cars should someone trip. Kids often ride bikes or Scooters. They walk this part of the road but they have a bike/scooter to push which makes narrow and uneven pavement an additional danger to them. During rainy season that gets even worse as the path becomes quite slippery and passing by cars make the pools splash to the pavement and pedestrians. Proposed construction will increase dramatically morning traffic and danger for kids and other pedestrians using this route. Suggestions to consider: 1- Down -scaling of proposed construction can help to keep safe or kids and neighbors. 2 - Add safe pedestrian crossing on Alberto way for kids and elder residents before any construction. 3 - Remodel pedestrian side way on Saratoga Los Gatos Rd to make it safe for walking and biking student residents. 4 - Additionally, an alternative path going Alberto Way, Maggi Ct, Bella Vista Ave., Caldwell Ave and then Los Gatos Blvd can be helpful. However that route has a piece of the road on Maggi Ct. that is gated and seems to he unavailable for general public. 1 expect to see your answers regarding proposed project danger for younger and older residents of Alberto way. Thank you for your time, consideration, and help. i Sincerely, ViCtotiya RUfanova 435 Alberto way, #5 Los Gatos, CA 2 Dear Planner, live at 420 Alberto Way, Unit 4- directly across the street from the proposed development at 401-409 Alberto Way. I am submitting this letter in opposition of the proposed project for the reasons listed below: Size, Location and Mass of proposed buildings: When attending the first open house that was hosted by the developers at the beginning of this year, spent over an hour asking detailed questions about the plan and reviewing the story boards that showed the mockups of the proposed buildings with them. I clearly expressed my concern to them about how tall the buildings would be, given the main feature that solidified the decision to purchase my condo was the peaceful patio view of the landmark trees and hills that this town is known for. I was told, and shown, how the buildings that were being proposed would be constructed within the existing building locations, that the building on the Hwy 9 side would be raised to match the current height of the adjacent building in the back of the lot on the Hwy 17 side, and that both buildings would be up to but not more than a handful of feet taller than the current highest point. Last month, story poles were constructed to illustrate the size and scope of the project, and this portrayal was a complete mismatch of what was communicated back in that Open House. The building that is on the Hwy 9 side is not only towering far into the sky, but it is expanded right all the way out across the parking lot to approximately triple the current width, hugging the curb along Alberto way. The result of this, as you can imagine, is that now all of the residents in units located on the Alberto Way street side and/or upper units of the neighboring complexes are greeted with views of a sea of Orange from some or all of their windows. In my case, it is all of them, including my once magical mountain and sunset patio view. I have included pies so you can get a small taste of the looming ugliness that I am currently forced to wake up to every morning, and go to bed with every night. purchased my condo in June of 2011, and for over 5 years I have come home to a serene sunset that has literally been my fleeting piece of sanity during challenging or stressful times. I have hundreds of pictures that I have taken of my patio sunset view that have been posted to Social Media and shared with friends and family over those 5 years, and it is one of the key moments of my day that reminds me just how blessed I am to live in this gorgeous town. The height, mass and layout of the proposed development is completely inappropriate and out of line with the values and features that make this town so unique and attractive to live in. It will negatively impact the value of our homes, taking away the main selling point for all of us who reside in the front or upper hill -facing sides of the complex. This is a tiny, quiet cul de sac within a tiny gorgeous mountain town... that is why we all chose to invest in building our lives here, and we want to keep it that way. Traffic and Parking: Living here on Alberto way, one of the daily pleasures and conveniences was always having plenty of options for street parking due to the composition of the street and neighboring complexes. With the recent redevelopment of the Inn of Los Gatos and the Grill 57 opening, that street parking has already been inhibited by hotel and restaurant employees, forcing those of us who relied on a street spot into vacant lot spots. While I understand this is not a good solution in itself, since those lots are likely not going to remain vacant, it is the reality at this point. With the new proposed development at 401-409 now, they are looking to remove most of the remaining street spots and move all of the current business lot parking into underground parking structures. This will further challenge the residents to have options for where to park, many of which have pets, children or are senior citizens. This will cause more congestion and potentially more accidents as people are trying to maneuver in and out of the driveways to find scarce parking. I also find it extremely concerning that during the last Open House a few weeks ago, the developers mentioned about 3 times how "not one of their other developments uses more than around half of their allotted parking structures/spaces". This comment was made while they were showcasing how they planned to target "Green" companies who will "bus in" their employees, trying to make a point that it won't cause as much of a traffic mess if that was accomplished. However, it was on the heels of another conversation where they had claimed they couldn't put any part of the buildings underground because this space was all needed for the parking structures. So they can't put a level of the buildings underground to drop the height of the current proposed structures because they need all of that space to build underground parking lots that will then only be 50% occupied?!... this is a complete waste of space and contradiction of statements. Traffic wise, Hwy 9 already gets completely backed up every time there is any tiny hiccup of traffic anywhere else in the town- it is a domino effect that ripples from Hwy 9 both directions out to LG Blvd and University, and then back down to Main Street where they both connect again. In addition, anytime Southbound Hwy 17 gets backed up (which is all the time), it backs up those trying to get onto the clover turn entrances, and then backs up all the way up and down Hwy 9, causing the same aforementioned ripple effect in a circle around downtown. This will also negatively impact the value of our homes as it will create a living environment of spiked traffic, daily congestion and parking challenges. Safety: Safety wise, to consider constructing a 90K+ square foot office complex and tripling the car influx during peak rush hour times will make this area on and around Alberto Way a complete danger zone to live in. The intersection at Alberto Way and Hwy 9 is already dangerous with cars flying downhill and often blowing through the light without looking to rush onto the freeway. Alberto Way is saturated with families with little children and seniors who walk to downtown or up to Hwy 9 regularly, and this additional traffic and congestion at the Alberto and 9 intersection will drastically increase the risk of them being hit or injured as a result of speeding, frustrated motorists. In terms of emergencies, this huge influx of congestion on and around Alberto way on a daily basis will make it an obstacle for emergency vehicles to navigate through should there be a house call that needs their attention. There have been numerous times when ambulances, fire trucks and police cars have been called to various residences on the street- with a Senior complex and a many small children, this is not an uncommon occurrence. What will happen when emergency vehicles need to get down Alberto Way and people are double parked or backed up around each other trying to get on or off the street during peak commute hours? How will the emergency vehicles get to those who are in need? There is no other entrance or exit onto Alberto way, so the only avenue an or off of it is via Hwy 9... this is a recipe for disaster. It will also negatively impact the value of our homes, creating an unsafe environment that young families and senior citizens will no longer find appealing. Noise, Air Quality, and Machinery: Those of us who have been living here for the past 5 years have spent the majority of that time living through the construction, noise and mess that accompanied the hotel and restaurant remodel- the last stage of which just finally concluded a mere 3 months ago. To propose another complete overhaul of demolition, dust, noise, mess, and large equipment barreling in and out of the streets for another 6 months to a year is going to push people to a breaking point. I do believe that the result of the Inn of Los Gatos hotel and Grill 57 remodels are appropriate, tasteful and add to the beauty of the street and surroundings, but we just finally got our peaceful quiet street back- we haven't had any time to enjoy it yet. This project not only will take away from those same qualities, but it will also be another onslaught of noise and chaos for who knows how long. In addition, many of us work from home part time- several of which have street side units- and the noise is distracting and debilitating to our ability to be productive and get our jobs done effectively when working at home. I could go on for pages more, but I'm sure there will be plenty of other letters from local residents that will touch on the other concerns that I have missed or not addressed here. On behalf of the residents of this beloved town who will be negatively impacted by this project due to the concerns listed in this letter, I beg you please do not approve the proposed development as submitted at 401-409 Alberto Way, This is a matter of our safety, our sanity, our peace of mind, and our quality of life, We truly love the serenity of our homes and the beauty of this town.., please help us keep that feeling alive. Thank you for taking the time to review this letter of opposition, Sincerely, Nichole Anne Rolle 420 Alberto Way, Unit 4 Jennifer Armer From: Nickie Rolle <nickie_rolle c@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 10:27 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Planning Subject: Re: Letter of Opposition for 401-409 Alberto Way Development Proposal To accompany the letter I just sent in, I forgot to attach the pictures referenced in the first section- please see below for views from each of my kitchen and living room windows: This Page Intentionally Left Blank P,I 4J .D. lrl On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 10:23 PM, Nickie Rolle <nickie rolle0yahoo.com> wrote: Hi there, I am a resident of Alberto Way, and am submitting the attached letter in opposition for the currently proposed development as submitted for 401-409 Alberto Way. Please feel free to reach out to me directly with any questions about the content included in this letter. Thank you for your time, Nichole Rolle 420 Alberto Way, Unit 4 Los Gatos, CA 408-614-4367 6 Jennifer Armer From: Susan Cahn <susancahn@earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 2:12 AM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: planning@losgatoca.gov; susancahn@earthlink.net Subject: Request for the Los Gatos Planning Department to vote against the 401-405 Alberto Way - Construction / Development project Hi Jennifer, I have sent you several emails regarding my opposition to the development and construction project on 401-405 Alberto Way. have been a resident of Los Gatos for over 40+ years. (I don't want my residence or contact number included in any public documents. As you know,l live at Las Casitas on Alberto Way.) I am very tired of all of the increasing traffic and congestion in downtown Los Gatos / HWY 17 Corridor and the many surrounding streets, and I strongly oppose the newly proposed 401-405 Alberto Way development /construction project. As a matter of fact, I would like to ask the Los Gatos Planning Department to institute a moratorium on large scale new construction and development projects on Alberto Way (in general and especially on 401-405), in the surrounding streets in Los Gatos, in residential areas in Los Gatos, and as well as the North Forty project until the town and the state government can come up with some suitable solutions to rectify the current traffic pandemonium in Los Gatos, which has eliminated the enjoyment of living and driving in Los Gatos. Los Gatos can't survive an increase in traffic and congestion due to the long estimated construction project and the completed development on 401-405 Alberto Way. I strongly hope the current plan to demolish all existing office units /buildings and parking and to rebuild from scratch the office units /buildings and a new underground parking structure for only employees and visitors - 383 underground parking spots and 7 surface parking spaces, will not be approved by the Los Gatos Planning Department on 8/10/16. My understanding and analysis of the recent discussion (7/25/16) and email exchanges that I had with you indicates that the traffic and congestion would dramatically increase due to the following: - There is only one proposed entrance and one proposed exit to the proposed 383 private underground parking spots increasing from -120 current parking spots. - The proposed office space would increase from 3 buildings totaling 31,000 sq. ft. to 2 newly constructed buildings totaling 91,965 sq. ft. Therefore, it is hard to believe that Los Gatos could survive at least 3+ times as much traffic at the center of town and at the key entrance to HWY 17 and HWY 9, etc. The following are some key areas that I believe would definitely be affected by the new construction project and the completed project at 401-405 Alberto Way: -The ingress and egress access and parking on a very busy narrow corridor located at the central apex of Los Gatos. - Increase of trucks and cars to and from the new office complex during the construction and after the project is completed will definitely prevent a timely access for all Los Gatos residents to downtown Los Gatos and the surrounding streets (i.e., Highway 17 corridor, Los Gatos - Saratoga Road, Los Gatos Blvd., University Avenue, North Santa Cruz / Winchester, Main Street, etc.) and efforts to drive to and from work, to numerous surrounding private and public schools, commercial / retail shopping, recreation, local dining, etc. - Potential key revenue loss for local businesses; residents may elect to do errands, shop or dine out, etc., in other local towns to avoid traffic delays, loss of time, and frustration. 1 - Very big potential safety hazard; Alberto Way only has one entrance and exit on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road directly adjacent to HWY 17 at the East Los Gatos exit; there is no additional outlet. There are four large key residential communities on Alberto Way; for example, residents for one of the complexes have to be at least 55 where there are -110 condos units; these senior residents frequently walk on Alberto Way. In addition, the other 3 residential communities have numerous residents, families, and children who walk and ride bikes, etc on Alberto way and on HWY 9 and the surrounding streets. Residents and neighborhood dogs on Alberto Way and the surrounding streets in Los Gatos could be at a much greater risk of being hit by construction trucks and additional cars. For example, currently Las Casitas has families with 21 children. It is very concerning to think that the entrance to the underground parking garage would be directly adjacent and close proximity to the only exit and entrance at Las Casitas. There would be an extreme increase in traffic, pedestrian and bike accidents. People currently speed every day when I travel on HWY 9 to turn on to Alberto Way from Los Gatos Blvd. or on Alberto Way. I have to vigilantly look in my rear view mirror every time I drive down HWY 9 before turning onto Alberto Way, and numerous people run the lights at Alberto Way and HWY 9. I am extremely concerned about how all of the 390 drivers would safely fit onto Alberto Way and how they would safely merge to make a left into the parking garage on the property crossing residents on Alberto Way and other drivers who are trying to leave Alberto Way. The proposals for additional turn lanes and /or a light that is triggered by drivers,won't provide the solutions to eliminate the traffic gridlock, long delays or prevent potential accidents that would affect all residents, business owners and patrons of Los Gatos. I am very concerned about how residents from Las Casitas and Pueblo de Los Gatos will be able to safely get out of their driveways because of all of the merging traffic. Residents will have to wait to safely get out of their driveways, which would also create big time delays and loss of revenue for many or emergency situations when trying to get to the doctor or vet or when there is a serious health emergency. - There would no longer be a chance for peaceful and quiet enjoyment for many of our town's residents and families for the local and surrounding Los Gatos residents. - This project would lower residential property values on Alberto way due to increased traffic and noise from construction, height of the structures, loss of privacy, which would affect the values of similar residential properties in general in Los Gatos PUDs /SFRs, condos, townhouses, retirement condos units, especially within a mile radius (or more) when used for comparable for appraisals and real estate transactions. -Would cause an extreme increase in pollution and poor air quality due to the demolition, construction, and increased traffic. Many residents have allergies and asthma, and all Alberto Way's residents especially the senior citizens at the Commons health would be very negatively affected. For example, a number of senior residents use additional oxygen or have to walk on Alberto way for exercise, and many can no longer drive. - Important street public parking has been proposed to be removed which would negatively affect residents, their guests and attendees to the restaurant. There is already a shortage of parking on Alberto Way, and the developer has only designated parking to be private on 401 -405 Alberto Way. -The local skyline /view of the mountains would be eliminated from many residents and would kill existing trees located directly next to the property at Las Casitas, if roots were to be damaged due to the proposed demolition and construction. - The scale and size of the project dramatically goes against the standard look and feel for Los Gatos and for Alberto Way. The proposed property is so tall that the privacy of adjacent residents at Las Casitas would be eliminated since people in the office building would be able to look directly into residents at Las Casitas yards, bedrooms, and the parking lot. -Many residents on Alberto Way are raising families and /or work from their homes so the noise from the construction and the additional noise from the cars and parking garage would be extremely negative and destroy the tranquil enjoyment that residents can have in their homes. I have been telecommuting /working from home for many years so I may have to move or find an office space, which I don't think I could afford. -Possible rodent and termite infestations/displacement in neighboring residences - It appears that the traffic report/ analysis posted on 401 Alberto Way.com was grossly understated and must not account for the current residential and freeway traffic in Los Gatos. -It appears that the developer has dramatically overestimated the amount of space that most companies allocate today to each worker since many companies employ bullpen environments where employees typically work very closely together. Therefore, there is a great possibility that a lot more people would be hired and attempt to get 390 parking spots and bike parking, which could create a lot of additional traffic when the parking garage is full especially during prime commuting or lunch hours, etc. Additionally I think it is unacceptable for location to bus people in like they do at companies like Google, 2 Intel, etc., again creating additional traffic jams, delays and accidents, etc. -There would most likely be an increase of crime with the influx of workers, employees, and people with the construction and completed project to Alberto Way. Residents of Alberto Way bought their homes and have been renting on Alberto Way to enjoy the quiet family and neighborly environment. We did not decide to move to Alberto Way to live in the midst of a large commercial development that would block traffic, create an extreme potential for accidents and safety hazards, and dramatically affect traffic for all of Los Gatos residents. I think it is unacceptable to destroy the quality of life for all Los Gatos residents for the profit of one developer to increase office space for the town, when the town already has sufficient office space available, and I don't believe the town can afford to pay a lot of money to try to make room for this project. sincerely thank you and the Planning Department for your time, help, and consideration. Best regards, Susan Cahn 3 Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: 401-409 Alberto Way Development From: Brian Wynn lmailto:brian.wynn83(gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 9:55 PM To: Planning Subject: 401-409 Alberto Way Development My name is Brian Wynn, and I'm a resident of the Pueblo de Los Gatos complex located at 420 Alberto Way. I wanted to write to you in regards to the proposed construction across the street from my home. I understand that many of the impacts have been laid out in the Environmental Impacts document: http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/15661, however, many of the concerns of the local residents along our small residential street are not effectively construed in this evaluation. I'm interested in expressing my concern for the residents of our neighborhood, because that's exactly what this street is when you drive down here. We are a neighborhood flanked by commercial developments along HWY 9 and the business complexes that are down at the end of Alberto Way. This is a neighborhood, or at least, it sure seems like it considering all of the people living here. My concern is for the safety and the long term impacts that having a construction crew work on this site for the duration of the proposed 18 month development. I'm worried about the increased traffic on our small, residential street - during construction and after. We have a lot of young families living on this street, with children frequently out playing in common areas. There are pets, a senior living facility. This is a small community that we have nestled down Alberto Way. What considerations have been taken for us? How will this proposed building and it's construction not have a direct impact on the residents here? What will happen to the property values along our street as commercial buildings go up and more construction takes place? Do you think they will go up? What are future plans for our neighborhood? Further commercial development? What is this part of town going to be zoned as? Because right now, the infrastructure currently in place sure seems to be designed as a residential zone, yet commercial development (first with the motel lot's expansion, also on the corner of HWY 9) continues. Needless to say, I am not in support of this proposed development. From the details laid out in the Environmental Impact report, and from our recent experience with the expansion of the motel, this development doesn't make sense for our neighborhood. Los Gatos is a small town. Regards, Brian Wynn brian.wynn83@gmail.com i Jennifer Armer From: Lewis Darrow <arixd777@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 9:57 AM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Lewis Darrow Subject: 401-405 Alberto Way Planning Comments Jennifer, Thank you for the planning information. Questions and concerns for the Planning Meeting on August 10,2016. Concern: The site and limited access to and from Alberto Way — Highway 9. Problem: Congestion during commute hours and lunch. Major additional truck traffic to build and provide ongoing building support and services. Addition of 300 plus underground parking adds a pinch point to an already bad traffic situation which will create delay. Potentially 2 narrow lanes turning right onto highway 9 with merge and back up problems for Alberto way. Problem: Access and stacking on Alberto way How is traffic controlled going into and out of the underground parking. Where do trucks go. Problem: Large truck traffic during construction and ongoing building support. Concern: Construction site access not large enough or layed out to support excavation, soils off hauls and concrete pours for two story underground parking. Cranes & concrete trucks, dirt, noise , dust, heavy equipment, vibrations, street damaage, parking elimination just for the new construction will create a constant problem for residents creating a dangerous pedestrian and vehicular condition, major traffic delays and problem to an already limited access street. There is one access point to Alberto Way. This major construction project at the access point will gridlock the traffic creating a congested and dangerous merge point. Pedestrians on the sidewalk in front of the building at peak merge times will have difficulty safely crossing the path of 300 plus cars and service vechicles entering and exiting the building. Sincerely, Lewis Darrow Owner and resident at 449 Alberto Way. Jennifer Armer To: Subject: J Scott RE: Keep our SMALL TOWN CHARM- Say no to 401-409 Alberto Way From: J Scott <gatosbella[a7,gmail_com> Date: Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:58 AM Subject: Keep our SMALL TOWN CHARM- Say no to 401-409 Alberto Way To: JArmer@losgatosca.gov Cc: dannette Scott <gatosbella@a.me.com> Dear Planning Commission; I respectuflly request you de ny the proposal/application to demolish a 33,000 sq ft office building, and replace it with 90,000+ sq ft office building at the corner of Los Gatos Saratoga Rd (Highway 9) & 401-409 Alberto Way. Our little street/ neighborhood just lived through 5+ years of construction at the Best Western and adjoining office space, and then Grill 57. We have seen our street overun with construction traffic (delaying our traveling to dropping children at school or traveling to and from work), contrucition noise(disruptive to those who have home offices or animals and children at home), I have lived on Alberto Way for 20 years and have been concerned with the speed of traffic and amount of cars on this curvy, narrow, dead end street. Much of the speeding traffic is heading to and from work in the office complex at the end of Alberto Way, but we also have several teenagers who like to use the stret as a race track. Through the years the neighborhood has grown to include many families with children who use the sidewalks and grassy areas in front of our complex to ride their bikes, walk their dogs or just run around on the grass and be kids. Furthermore, we have a huge 55+ community called the Los Gatos Commons and who for some a walk to the stop light at corner(of where this project sits),is their only outing of the day. They chose Los Gatos as theri place to retire becasue of our small town charm. Please don't take this from them. Reasons to deny 401-409 Alberto Way; 1. Size, Mass & Orientation; not conducive to neighborhood. Robs neighbood of sunlight, view. safety & small town charm. 2. Safety- Alberto Way is full with Children, Seniors & Animals. I fear for their safety with increased traffic & impact on our air quality. 3. Traffic- Alberto way is a narrow, curvy, dead end street that simply can't handle more traffic. As it is, we need speed bumps to slow the ttaffic entering Alberto at LG/Saratoga Road (downhill slope) 4. Noise;: Many of us have home offices and the noise will impact our ability to conduct normal business 5. Red Light Violaters; Traffic traveling west on LG /Saratoga Road from LG Blvd, are traveling at downhill speed and often, very often can't brake quick enough when light turns yellow, so they just pass through the red light hoping no one notices. Many of us who have witnessed accidents through the years are wise to this so we're extra vigilent when trying to exit Alberto Way. Adding any amounts of cars to this location, even with a dedicated turn lane, will add traffic and pedestrian safety issues. Thank you for you consideration. Jannette Scott 420 Alberto Way #18 Los Gatos, CA 95032 i This Page Intentionally Left Blank