Loading...
Attachment 23On Sep 14, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Loretta Fowler <lorettakfowler@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mayor Sayoc, We at The Commons thank you very much for meeting with us on Tuesday. We appreciate your answering questions and visiting our development. want to reaffirm how distressed we are about the developer's wide distribution of a brochure about his proposed building. We feel that he has misrepresented public opinion on this project. We hope that the 9/19 hearing on this project can focus on land use issues and not a shuttle that, if it happens, is probably four years away, that has not been demonstrated to be a boon to downtown businesses, and that does nothing to cope with the introduction of 330+ cars onto LG/S Rd. and Alberto Way. I am attaching our response to the appeal that the developer submitted. Thank you again for listening to us. Sincerely, Loretta Fowler, member of the Commons Committee on Alberto Way Development ATTACHMENT 2 3 rnn ECE�Vl SEP 1 4 1.O1 TOWN `F0.) 3 TOS September 13, 2017 At the Planning Commission hearing of May 10, 2017, the Commissioners evaluated whether or not LP Acquisitions had made "significant" changes to their proposed project at 401-409 Alberto Way. The original proposal was for two office buildings totaling over 93,000 sq. ft. The Commission gave directions for changes and, on May 10, the developer presented a proposal for one building of 83,000 sq. ft. Finding that significant changes had not been made, the Commission denied the project. The reasons for the denial are contained in the "whole record" (5/10: 162-64), that is, the transcripts from the hearings of 8/10 and 8/24/2016 and 5/10/17. We residents of the Los Gatos Commons wish to respond to the developer's appeal of the Commission's decision to deny approval for the 401-409 Alberto Way project. We support the Planning Commission's decision and offer counter arguments to the developer's grounds for appeal. First Reason for the Developer's Appeal: The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because the Commission's decision to deny the Project and refusal to certify the Project EIR were not based on substantial evidence The Developer's Arguments: 1. The Commission subjectively considered only one General Plan policy (1.4) and only one Commercial Design Guideline (1.4), arbitrarily disregarding the entire General Plan, zoning code, and CDG and choosing not to apply the objective development standards to the Project. A. Did the Commission only consider one GP policy and one CDG? In point of fact, the Commission also found inconsistencies with LU 1,8 and LU 6.5 (both "Mandatory") and to CDG 2.3.3 and 2.3.5 by number.' In addition, the Commission pointed to inconsistencies with 25 additional GP policies identified not by number but by quoting or paraphrasing them. 2 1 LU1.8 (8/24: 7, 98, 100, 110; 5/10: 8-9, 129, 154); LU6.5 (8/10: 123, 125, 135; 8/24: 7, 23, 30-34, 37-39, 51-52, 75, 96, 99, 110; 5/10: 20, 26, 28, 122, 129, 156, 163); CDG2.3.3 (8/10: 20; 8/24: 15, 107, 115); CDG2.3.5 (8/24: 30, 109- 110). 2 LU4-8/24: 7, 98, 100; 5/10: 154, 159;LU4.2-8/24: 54; 5/10: 154, 156, 159; LU6-8/24:51-52, 72, 98; 5/10: 153- 57; LU6.1-8/24: 7, 27-29, 44-45, 49-50; 5/10: 135, 139-47; 153-54, 156-57, 159; LU6.2---8/24: 7, 30-31, 51, 98; LU6.3-8/10: 18, 20; 8/24: 15, 107, 115; 5/10: 128, 153-56; LU6.4-8/24: 7, 30, 54; 5/10: 153, 156-57; LU6.8 1 B. Was the finding that the project was "too big" arbitrary? Actually, as Commissioner O'Donnell said, "Reduction in size addresses a lot of problems" (8/24: 104). Some of these problems: • The proposed two-story "massive,", "more bulky and massey," imposing building, with a "strong sense of bulk" [as described by Commissioners) (5/10: 8-9, 21-23, 26, 28, 154, 156), which stretches almost from one end of the site to the other, is dramatically larger in scale and mass than neighboring structures. A smaller building (s) would be the right fit with the character and sense of place for the neighborhood. • The public views of the hills would be totally blocked by this 83,000 sq. ft. building (and the private view from Pueblo de Los Gatos also blocked) (5/10: 125, 163). The existing smaller buildings do not (and other smaller, well placed buildings would not) block the views. • The construction of a two-story underground garage for 330 cars will likely cause property damage to neighboring properties, according to expert civil engineer and hydrologist, Dr. Peter Geissler (5/10: 139-40, 142-44, 146-47, 153-54). A smaller office complex with fewer cars to park would not require a two-story underground garage. • The residents of Alberto Way will experience a significant increase in traffic on their narrow, single access street and at the intersection with Los Gatos -Saratoga Road due to the introduction of 330 cars going in and out of the project (5/10: 35-37, 128, 131-33, 154, 156-57). A smaller office complex with fewer tenants would bring fewer cars . • Las Casitas residents will lose privacy with the two-story proposed building placed adjacent to their development (5/10: 24-25, 33-37, 128, 155). If the office building (s) was smaller, it would not have to be so close to Las Casitas. C. Was the finding that the project was "too big" entirely subjective? (Mand.)-8/24: 30, 51, 72, 74-75, 96-98, 100, 104-05, 115-17; 5/10: 125, 128-29, 153-54, 159, 161; LU9.9 (Mand.)-8/10: 18, 20; 8/24: 15, 107, 115; 5/10: 24-25, 128, 155-56. In CD, CD1.2 (Mand.): 8/24: 51; 5/10: 125, 153-54, 159, 163; CD1.4 (Mand.)-8/10: 136; 8/24:51; 5/10: 125, 153-54, 159, 163; CD16.1: 8/24: 6-7, 96, 109-10; 5/10: 125; CD16.3 (Mand.)-8/24: 6-7, 96, 109-10; 5/10: 125, 163. In TRA, TRA2.5-8/24: 96-97; 5/10: 154; TRA3-8/10: 115, 117; 8/24: 19, 54, 82, 108; 5/10: 156; TRA3.10-8/10: 115, 117; 8/24: 19, 54, 82, 108; 5/10: 156; TRA3.12-5/10: 157; TRA5.4-8/10: 115, 117; 5/10: 131, 133. VIS 2 & 3: 5/10: 154, 159-60; H510 & HOU5.3 &6.4-5/10: 154. And in CDG, 1.3: 5/10: 154, 158; CDG 1.5.1: 5/10: 153. 2 On the contrary: • The square footage of the building is dramatically and significantly greater than that of any other commercial building on Alberto Way and much greater than any other office building in the neighborhood (see attached illustration). • The density of the proposed office building in terms of its tenants is far greater than that of the "medium -density" neighborhood of Alberto Way (8/24: 99, 110). The building will have 330 plus tenants and the developer indicated that there would be no "cap" on the number of tenants (5/10:20). • Photographs show that the public view of the hills from the west sidewalk, used regularly and frequently by Commons residents and by other neighborhood residents, will be completely blocked by the proposed building (see attached illustration —views from 3 vantage points). • Alberto Way is a single access street that is also narrow and windy. (That is why there was so much talk about straightening and widening it to accommodate traffic and allow easy access for emergency vehicles.) Note General Plan TRA 2.5. • Seniors are about half the adult population of the Alberto Way neighborhood. There are about 335 adult residents. Seniors number 133 at The Commons and about 37 at the three other developments combined. The presence of seniors (by and large, retired) driving and walking through the neighborhood throughout the day gives the neighborhood its character and sense of place to a great degree. They are especially vulnerable to traffic delays and dangerous traffic conditions given their frequent need for medical services and therapeutic walking. Thus, it is reasonable for the Commissioners to give weight to the needs of seniors (5/10: 154, 157). D. Did the developer achieve 80-90% of what the Planning Commission directed so that their denial was subjective? Frankly, no. Consider five changes that the developer suggests meet the directive. The changes actually do not meet the directive. • First and second, the developer claims he reduced the size of the building significantly: The two buildings were combined into one and the square footage reduced by 9,000 sq. ft. (9- 10%), and the height was reduced by 5.5-6 feet, which reduced the volume by 25% . However, the Commission found 9,000 sq. ft. an insignificant reduction (5/10: 128, 152- 56, 159-61), and building size is considered by the Town in terms of square feet, not "volume" (5/10: 10). • The other three changes address the neighbors' concerns, according to the developer: The building was relocated to the rear of the site to enhance the views of the mountains when viewed from property on the east side of the street. 3 However, the view was not "enhanced" but, rather, remains completely blocked on the west side (the public view of neighbors who walk up and down that sidewalk) and largely blocked on the east side of the street. The building was shifted ten feet away from the property line of Las Casitas. However, the Las Casitas residents still have concerns about loss of privacy due to the second story windows that look from the proposed building down on their yards and windows (5/10: 104-05) . The surface parking was increased in response to concerns from the Town and the neighbors who will lose eight parking places on the street. However, none of the surface parking will be available to the residents, according to the developer (8/24: 12; also personal communication from Mr. Lamb at a community meeting). E. N>id the Commission privilege the neighbors' perspectives on neighborhood scale over "community expectations" and town scale? MR. LAMB ALSO ARGUED THAT THE NEIGHBORS WANTED NO DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE (5/10:31). Actually, the project's square footage compared to other office buildings in Los Gatos was a concern of Commissioners, and Town records show that the largest office building south of Lark is at 750 University at 62,750 sq. ft. (5/10: 8-9). University is not a quiet residential street; the speed limit is 35 mph. The proposed building is more than twice the size of Palo Alto Medical Center (40,000 sq. ft.) on Los Gatos Blvd. Moreover, letters from the residents' representatives August 18, 2016 advocated for Alternative 1, Option 2 ("Existing Square Footage") as described in the DEM. 3 In this plan, the existing buildings would be demolished and new structures built. The Planning Commission supported this idea in principle, suggesting that the combined size could be increased from 31,000 sq. ft. to less than 60,000, perhaps to 43,000 (8/24: 4, 46-48, 50-52, 86, 94-95, 104-05, 115-19; 5/10: 125, 127-28, 155-56). Residents do not oppose a reasonable increase over 31,000 sq. ft., and representatives from all four developments support a size of 45,000 sq. ft. l►�id the Commission not consider the project's compliance with the zoning code, as the developer argued 3 DEIR: 6-11. Alternative 1, Option 2 would result in less potential environmental impact and would meet a portion of the objectives of the proposed project. Arguably only one of the objectives is in question. 4 Actually, the General Plan does not consider the Zoning Code paramount: "Land use decisions encompass not only zoning, but circulation, design, open space, and other factors" (General Plan INT-1). G. Did the Commission arbitrarily/subjectively ignore Cannon Design's conclusion that the project complied with the Town's guidelines? Actually, Mr. Cannon recommends "starting the design with the goal of creating multiple structures with smaller scale modules ..." [similar to the existing complex]. He concluded that the project still seems "to read as one large office building without a breakdown in scale related to the neighborhood or the Los Gatos existing small town scale" and the design does not have "the careful attention to architectural ... detail similar to the Town's residential architecture" (March 17, 2017, p. 3). H. Did the Commission refuse to consider information submitted indicating that a smaller building was infeasible? Actually, (quoting from attorney Rachel Mansfield -Howlett), A developer's bare assertion that a smaller project is infeasible does not meet the standards of infeasibility laid out in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167: "The fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1181; See also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736; City of Fremont v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (1995) 34CaI.App.3d 1780.) Unsurprisingly, many developers doggedly resist altering projects and prefer to build their proposed project unaltered. This understandable penchant does not supplant alternative review; otherwise, CEQA review would be futile (Burger v. County of Mendocino (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322 [absent an estimate of income or expenditures supporting the conclusion that reduction of a motel project or relocation of some units would make the project unprofitable, an infeasibility finding based on economic factors could not be made.]; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. County of Santa Barbara 197 Cal.App.3d 1167 [record including no analysis of the comparative costs, profits, or economic benefits of scaled down project alternative was insufficient to support finding of economic infeasibility]; Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App. 4th 587 [project applicant's preference against an alternative does not render it 5 infeasible]; (Save Round Valley v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437). Here, the developer has not submitted any data sufficient to show that purported additional costs or decreased profits would render it impractical to proceed with the project, as they must. to Did the Planning Commission abuse its discretion when it refused to certify the EIR? Actually, Mr. Joel Paulson told the Commission it would be "proper" to deny the project and not certify the EIR (5/10: 151, 161). 2. Second Reason for the Developer's Appeal: The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town Council in at least two respects. The developer argues that a municipality has discretion to approve a project even if it is not found to be consistent with "each and every" plan policy. But the Planning Commission did not find that the developer's project was not consistent with every GP policy. In order for the Town's plans and policies to have any weight or efficacy, they must be able to be used, where appropriate, to deny a project approval, otherwise, what would be the purpose of adopting land use goals and provisions at all? In fact, General Plan consistencies are relevant to the approval or disapproval of the CUP application. The Commission had discretion to deny the project. The developer also argues that the General Plan guidelines are merely advisory. That means that the Town can adhere to guidelines. Moreover, some guidelines (those that include "shall") are "mandatory" according to the General Plan. Should these not be considered to have special weight? 6 From: Gordon, Barry [rnailto:B.gordonrStructint_com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 1:55 PM To: voiceheard@c1,401albertoway.com Subject: Please approve 405 Alberto Way Dear Town of Los Gatos Council, Town Manager and Town Planning Staff, I am the President of the Los Gatos Bicycle Racing Club (LGBRC) that was founded in Los Gatos in 1960. We have been promoting our world famous Cat's Hill bike race in the beautiful Los Gatos Almond District since 1974. The 45th version of the race with be held on April 28, 2018. This event brings 100s of racers and spectators to our beautiful downtown every spring. We have devoted considerable time to the Town of Los Gatos as an Ambassador of the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce. We have supported several local charitable organizations such as Los Gatos Education Foundation (LGEF), Community Against Substance Abuse (CASA), Los Gatos High School Band, Good Karma Bikes and other various community and national programs. We also strongly support the proposed 405 Albert Way project for this rather obvious reason: Bicycle Safety. Many of our 100 members live and/or work in Los Gatos and have our very well attended Saturday team ride that starts at the Los Gatos Roasting Company. We want all cyclists to have a safe and fun experience riding in Los Gatos. We know that any initiative that will remove vehicles from the road will make Los Gatos and even safer town and that is exactly what the proposed 405 Albert Way project will achieve through its proposed free shuttle service. In summary, the entire membership of the LGBRC urge you to approve this cycling friendly project for our town. Thank you. Barry Gordon, President Los Gatos Bicycle Racing Club, Inc. A four -time USA Cycling Club of the Year A 501C3 Non -Profit Charity www.lgbrc.orq 408-821-6014 bgordon[custructint.com Los Gatos Bicycle Racing Club 2r Division 1 USA CYCLING CLUB OF THE YEAR Electronic Privacy Notice: The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Bob Gionfriddo[maiito;Bob.Gionfriddoraherbank.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 4:26 PM To: 'voiceheard©401albertoway.com' Cc: dfriddo:pme.com Subject: Please approve 405 Alberto Way To the Los Gatos Town Council and Planning Commission. Comments IN FAVOR of the 405 Alberto Way Commercial Re Development My name is Robert Gionfriddo and my wife Donna and I live at 50 Chester Street in close proximity to the proposed project across Los Gatos Creek. We have lived in this Community for over 30 years and want to see progress made in the appropriate commercial sectors in Town. This project will replace an old antiquated office building with a new Class A office. As banker I speak with many business owners who are seeking to find office space in Los Gatos to work closer to their homes and can find no suitable and available quality space in close proximity to downtown. This project will solve some of that concern with a design that blends substantially with the Town's look and feel. The development will improve the ingress and egress to Alberto Way from our point of view since we often frequent the local restaurant there Grill 57. With a shuttle many people will benefit and we probably will not drive there in the future. Currently you cannot make a right turn onto Highway 9 and the freeway entrance if a car is on Alberto turning left thus backing up traffic. The shuttle will also elevate the dilemma( not yet resolved) of beach traffic cutting through our beautiful town on summer weekends by taking cars off the downtown roads and allowing us to move more freely. We are not sure what the objective concerns are to oppose this project since the development meets all the town's requirements from what we can determine. Please vote IN FAVOR of the 405 Alberto Way project. Thank you, Robert and Donna Gionfriddo Bob Gionfriddo Executive Vice President, Director of Business Development 150 Almaden Boulevard San Jose, California 95113 408.200.8737, cell 408.489.1200 DISCLAIMER This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of it from your system. The sender accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of the sender by means of email communications unless expressly stated to the contrary. Please note: Sending an unencrypted email is not a secure method of transmitting confidential personal information such as social security numbers or account numbers. To transmit this type of information to us, please visit our website at htthsww' hcr..tagch-anko .c,- nlerc .bank and use our Secure Email system. DISCLAIMER — Original Message From: Victor Bell [mailto:vbell40@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 7:28 PM To: voiceheard@40lalbertoway.com Subject: Please approve 405 Alberto Way To Whom it May Concern, I would like to convey my sincere support for the 405 Alberto Way project. Having owned multiple properties in Los Gatos, I am very familiar with the city's attributes and opportunities. I believe that the design of the building is exceptional, consistent with the overall Los Gatos feel and compliments the neighboring properties. Furthermore, the project is a great improvement over the old garden style office currently residing on the property. Being located adjacent to Highway 17, coupled with the proposed free shuttle service to downtown seems like a great attraction for tenants of the project to get to and from the project quickly while offering an alternative for getting downtown without having to park or create additional traffic. I've known many downtown business owners that have struggled to fill seats or move their goods and I believe that the likely tenant profile for the project will have great demand and resources for these goods and services and will help breath life and dollars into the community. I plan on attending the city council meeting on September 19th and am hoping that the project is approved and moves forward quickly. Sincerely, Victor Bell From: Paulette Sato [mailto:surfbudhaOgmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:23 PM To: Council Subject: 405 Alberto Way Project Paulette Sato 420 Alberto Way #26 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Attention Los Gatos Board Members, The 83,000-sq. ft. office complex project at 405 Alberto Way proposed by Randy Lamb of Lamb Partners is one of the topics to be discussed at the town council meeting on Tuesday, September 19. Randy Lamb has brought this project before the board at least twice already, having received the suggestion to reduce the dimensions of the building significantly to fit the already existing architecture and environment of Los Gatos. Instead of making adjustments however, he has completely disregarded the board's suggestions and proposed to run a free shuttle from the building site to the downtown area and high school to "serve" the community. He has not addressed any of the concerns of the residents nor heeded the advice of the town board members at all. So why request an appeal? He has wasted both the board members' and the residents' time without making any of the requested changes. Nothing in his architecture plans has been modified, and the 'free shuttle' acts as a diversion and a distraction from the issue at hand -the building itself. At this point, he is just making a mockery out of the whole proposal/appeal process and is totally disrespecting the board and the residents. Please do not approve this project, especially since Lamb has tried numerous times to bully, coerce, and deceive the townspeople of Los Gatos with plans that ultimately don't benefit the community members at all, but only serve as gratification for his own selfish interests. Sincerely, Paulette Sato- From: Lindsay Catterton <lcattc5850gaol.com> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 7:12 AM Subject: 405 Alberto Way To: Jennifer Armer <jarmer(a1osgatosca.i;ov> To Whom it May Concern am a resident of 439 Alberto Way, The Los Gatos Commons. As the time nears for the Town Council meeting on Sept. 19 I am more and more concerned about the possibility of this project being approved. Mr. Lamb and his group have tried to "woo" the town with the promise of the Cat Bus as a distraction from the horrible additional traffic this project will create. Why anyone in his right mind would want to make matters worse is beyond me!! In defense of the project, it is a very good looking building and I would approve it anywhere other than the intersection of Alberto Way and Hwy 9!!! The congestion for the time to demolish the old buildings and then build the new creates a time that many old people could be impacted by the inability of emergency vehicles to get thru this narrow street with only one way in and out. This town doesn't need one more car staying here or driving through!! I believe everyone has a right to make money and I am quite sure they have spent more money promoting this project than I will ever see in my life but they really need to find another location for their slick building which they will never have any interest in when it gets built. They have shown no real concern for the residents of Alberto Way and they have publicly stated that we don't want them here...this is true!! Please consider this with heart as you make your decision. Seeing this town change from 1969 (when I moved here from Alexandria, VA) to what it today, is sad. We old timers have loved this community and want to stay here as long as God allows but not the way it currently is growing, Thank you, Lindsay M. Catterton Septmber 15, 2017 From: Miller, Mike (SJC)[mailto:Mike.Miller(acolliers.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 10:34 AM To: 'voiceheard©401albertoway.com' Subject: Please approve 405 Alberto Way Good day, I am writing to voice my support for the proposed development at 405 Alberto Way. As a Los Gatos native and commercial real estate broker who is very active in the Los Gatos submarket, I can speak to the pent up demand that exists for larger blocks of commercial space in this town. Small tenants can usually find space in one of the many multi -tenant, small suite buildings in Los Gatos, but as those companies grow, very few buildings can accommodate that growth. Additionally, larger companies who like the idea of relocating to Los Gatos have very few options to satisfy that desire. This is a very lucrative sector of the commercial market that Los Gatos is not getting much benefit from. Why continue to lose these larger tenants to Campbell, west San Jose and Cupertino? Regarding 405 Alberto Way specifically, the developers have made significant strides to ensure that this development takes into account the impact that it would have on the Town of Los Gatos. The proposed FAR is lower than allowed to recognize concerns about density, the height of the project has been reduce to accommodate those whose views may be impacted, additional lanes are proposed to help with traffic and a shuttle would be provided to not only lower the amount of traffic going to and from downtown Los Gatos at lunch and in the early evening, but also as a service to encourage the employees of the proposed buildings to patronize the downtown businesses during what are now non -peak times. Finally, the location of this project near a freeway interchange and away from pedestrian traffic is where the Town should be looking to approve these types of larger developments. Please look beyond the traditional "no growth" chatter that has existed in Los Gatos for as long as I can remember and focus instead on the benefits and appropriateness of this opportunity. Respectfully, Mike Miller Senior Vice President CA License No, 01128603 Direct +1 408 282 3842 I Mobile +1 408 887 5966 Main +1 408 282 3800 I Fax +1 408 283 2534 mike.milierf&coliiers.com I Add as Contact Colliers International — Commercial Real Estate 450 W. Santa Clara St. j San Jose, CA 95113 I United States www.colliers.com Colliers ..rr11.i.rrr yid INtaSE)lE$ LIFEA 2017 contributing sponsor of Colliers International's Links for Life Foundation. From: Raymond Toney <raymond.toney2@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 10:40:58 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos Dear Ms Armer I just received in the mail, a flyer touting the approval of the above referenced project. It is strange to note that not one of those supporting the passage of the projected project is a resident of Alberto Way. It is obvious that none of them have any idea of the hardships the project will impose upon the residents of Alberto Way, nor of the dangers a two story underground parking garage, with only one way to get in and to escape, will impose on future tenants. Only one of those supporters has a business in Downtown Los Gatos. Firenza Pizza is located in the new shopping center across from Whole Foods on Blossom Hill. These "supporters" are ill-informed and will lose business from putting their names on a flyer supporting a project which has already been turned down by the Planning Commission. Raymond M. Toney. 453 Alberto Way, #241, Los Gatos, Ca 95032