Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Attachment 4 - Exhibit 12
From: Bill Puterbaugh [mailto:bputerbaugh@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 8:28 AM To: Council Subject: Netflix Campus We strongly support the Netflix campus. Bill and Esther Puterbaugh 183 Longmeadow Drive. Bill Puterbaugh (408) 398-2082 EXHIBIT 1 2 LyvilivE Walicia 127VistevDeb Monte; LC* cuto�95030 408-356-2048 April 15, 2013 The Honorable Charles Erekson, Chairperson Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: Support for the Albright Way Campus Project Dear Chairperson Erekson and Planning Commissioners: I am writing to you to express my support for the Albright Way Office Campus project. Having a world -class office headquarters in Los Gatos is a source of great pride, jobs, and revenue for our community and it is important that we retain Netflix. This complies with the General Plan, that the area should be the home for new, attractive office campuses such as the one proposed at Albright Way. Netflix provides jobs, vibrancy and status without using hazardous materials. By upgrading the property to a high quality office campus, Los Gatos can provide the space Netflix needs as well as hopefully attract new positive projects. The proposal has had public review and exhaustive environmental study. The conclusions are that any issue can be addressed to have no negative impact on the community. Los Gatos must plan to address all of the needs of our community. This proposal has now been reduced in height and scope. There are no longer residences or a twenty year development agreement. The benefits of this type of controlled growth and reuse of an existing office park are substantial. In addition to jobs, the project would generate millions of dollars in annual property tax revenue to support town services such as public safety, road repairs, library hours and schools. Los Gatos is a wonderful place to live because we have a diverse job base and a strong revenue stream to pay for town services and outstanding schools. Not supporting this opportunity will impact all residents. For these reason, I am asking you to approve the Albright Way Campus project. Sincerely, Lynn E Williams Cc: Los Gatos Town Council, Town Manager, Town Planner April 16, 2013 The Honorable Charles Erekson Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos, 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Chairperson Erekson and Planning Commission Members: I am writing to you in support of the Albright Way Rezoning on Winchester Boulevard. My family and I reside in the Aventino apartments, and enjoy being a part of the Los Gatos community. I pass the Albright Way site every day. There are office and light industrial businesses operating in old, outdated buildings. This property needs the reinvestment that the Albright applicant is proposing. The project would clean up the uses on the site as well as construct modern, beautifully designed buildings that are similar in style to the Town's new library. As a resident in the area, I believe the traffic on Winchester Boulevard will improve with signal coordination. Additionally, the new signal planned at Courtside will make it safer for all who use the street. It will eliminate people darting in and out of traffic to cross Winchester Boulevard. Los Gatos has no large campus formatted commercial space and very little Class A office space. This is a great need in our community. There have been extensive changes made to the proposal to respond to the community. The height has been reduced to be similar to the existing Netflix campus and the senior housing, which would have been a good use next to Charter Oaks, has been eliminated. We now have a proposal for a high quality Class A office only project, something that is in short supply in Los Gatos. The studies have been done. The project has been redesigned based on community input. It is now time to make this project a reality. Having a place for Netflix or any other company to grow jobs keeps our community strong. This project is good for all of Los Gatos. I graciously ask for your support to approve it without delay. Sincerely, Raphael Oliveira Joel Paulson Town Principal Planner jpaulson@losgatosca.gov Mr. Paulson, I want to offer my support of the Albright Way office campus project. I believe the project is a critical economic development project for our town, creating jobs while allowing Netflix to remain, expand and grow in its hometown. Local restaurants and retail businesses will benefit from employees patronizing their establishments. In addition, over $1 million in annual property taxes directed to our schools and town services will favorably impact our entire community. vote to approve the Albright project 2j Mo-ss. oQY4 � o G-0J - CIA- CoR3 0 Joel Paulson From: Jim Purcell <jpurcell@scu.edu> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:37 PM To: Joel Paulson Subject: Albright Way development Dear Mr. Paulson: As a resident of Los Gatos, I am writing to urge the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed Albright Way development that includes space for Netflix to expand. This is exactly the type of development the town of Los Gatos needs and it is very consistent with our general plan. Please convey my support to the members of the Planning Commission. Sincerely Jim Purcell 111 Via Teresa Los Gatos, CA 95030 i Joel Paulson From: Mary Ann Charters <macharters@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:56 PM To: Joel Paulson Subject: Please keep Netflix in Los Gatos!!!! Mr. Paulson, I want to offer my support of the Albright Way office campus project. I believe the project is a critical economic development project for our town, creating jobs while allowing Netflix to remain, expand and grow in its hometown. Local restaurants and retail businesses will benefit from employees patronizing their establishments. In addition, over $1 million in annual property taxes directed to our schools and town services will favorably impact our entire community. Please vote to approve the Albright project! Mary Ann Charters Los Gatos Resident 1 April 17, 2013 a nil m a m O o J 1 N 3N�a The Honorable Charles Erekson, Chair Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: Support for the Albright Way Redevelopment Dear Chair Erekson and Members of the Planning Commission: As a neighboring property and business owner to the Albright Way property, I am pleased to support the request for a rezoning of the property. My company, March Development Company, is the owner /operator of Vasona Station shopping center. As you know, our complex has many neighborhood serving businesses. The redevelopment of the Albright property with a corporate campus, in this part of Los Gatos not only brings more jobs to our community overall, those employees support Many of the family operated businesses in our center by purchasing good and services and dining at the restaurants. The project has been significantly changed in response to the community. The Albright campus proposal conforms to the surrounding uses, and addresses the Town's vision of higher density in the Vasona Light Rail area. This is the where this type of development should be built. The ability to retain and/or attract major employers to Los Gatos is a strategic goal of the Town. This property is ideal for the type of development being proposed. It has freeway access, is located on a major roadway, and will provide the opportunity for Netflix to expand. The Los Gatos Gateway project, across from our center, faced the same type of critique as Albright. If the Town hadn't had the foresight to move forward, Netflix would not be a Los Gatos company today. Albright is a plan for the future. I strongly urge you to vote in favor of the Albright Way proposal. Sincerely, _M Beth Wright President March Development Company MARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 0 14703-b Winchostor Blvd., Los Gatos, Ca 95032 t: 408,866.6469 f:408.866.5536 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Anne Robinson PT, RYT movement educoiorimenuol Iherapisi Phone 408.410.5781 Fax 408.378.2438 physical Therapy • pilules • yoga Therapy • myofascial • croniosacrol 4-16-13 RE: Albright Project RECEIVED APR 17 2013 MAYOR &TOWN COUNCIL Dear Mayor Barbara Spector After I spoke last night, I realized I did not leave the Town Council enough information to understand the impact of Building #4. The picture was not in focus on the overhead projector, and I don't think I answered your questions well. I have enclosed two more photos than the one submitted last night and a site layout to help you in understanding the Location of where the pictures are taken. If you would like to view it yourself, go near the front door of 101 Walnut Hill Ct. (on the corner of Walnut Hill and Charter Oaks circle) and look northwest. You will see the cherry picker and be able to determine whether you think Building #4 will be a significant impact on the Charter Oaks neighborhood. Directions — Turn onto Charter Oaks Dr. — Take your second left (Charter Oaks Circle) and drive about 50 yards. House is on the left. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to email or call me. My contact information is below. Thank you. espectfully, Anne Robinson 201 Charter Oaks Circle Los Gatos, CA 95032 Anne4PT@aol.com aol.com 408-410-5781 (5 i C-g —kr TC,o(aNict),_ 1--UNG) 777 Knowles Drive, Suite 6B • Los Gatos, California 95032 An nndntrOnnt r„n, o m o m This Page Intentionally Left Blank Joel Paulson From: Black, Jeff @ San Jose <Jeff.Black@cbre.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:33 PM To: Joel Paulson Subject: Albright Project Mr. Paulson, I want to offer my support of the Albright Way office campus project. This project replaces an old single story manufacturing development with a state of the art class A office complex that will hopefully retain Netflix in our town; but in any event it will offer the type of development that all high tech companies are looking for in Silicon Valley. In today's highly competitive market for skilled employees, high technology companies must not only provide competitive wages, but also provide world class work environments. The project is a critical economic development project for our town. Local restaurants and retail businesses will benefit from employees patronizing their establishments. In addition, over $1 million in annual property taxes directed to our schools and town services will favorably impact our entire community. Please vote to approve the Albright project! Jeff & Cathy Black 362 Bachman Ave From: Jeff Benjamin [mailto:ieffbeniamin3©vahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:39 AM To: Town Manager Subject: Albright Office Park Project Attention Town Manager and Staff - This is a note of our support for the re -development of the Los Gatos Business Park LLC (proposed Albright Office Park) and urge the council to approve the Albright project. It is currently an office park and will continue to be one. The existing buildings are old and out of date and need to be replaced. Additionally, now with the project no longer having a residential component, there are benefits of this project to both our Los Gatos school districts without any of the negative impacts and costs of increased student population associated with additional housing. As a Los Gatos teacher and now parents of a student in the district, we feel the revenue is essential in helping to keep our schools GREAT! Thanks you for supporting our town's children and other residents who will benefit from the business taxes. Sincerely, Jeff and Holly Benjamin Joel Paulson From: Teri Carter <scouttic@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:01 AM To: Joel Paulson Subject: Albright Way project Joel Paulson Town Principal Planner ipaulson(a,losgatosca.gov Mr. Paulson, We would like to offer our support of the Albright Way office campus project. We believe the project is a critical economic development project for our town, creating jobs while allowing Netflix to remain, expand and grow in its hometown. Local restaurants and retail businesses will benefit from employees patronizing their establishments. In addition, over $1 million in annual property taxes directed to our schools and town services will favorably impact our entire community. Please vote to approve the Albright project! Thank you!! Rex and Teri Carter 360 Bachman Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 408-596-0750 r April 16, 2013 The Honorable Charles Erekson Chairperson Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos, 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: Albright Way Rezonning - Support Dear Chairperson Erekson and Planning Commissioners: Thank you for your time in considering my support for the application to redevelop the Albright Way property. Los Gatos is a wonderful place to live because it offers a mix of amenities to meet the desires of all of us fortunate enough to call it home. We need people to reinvest in our community, and we have that opportunity with the Albright project. Creating a world class office campus across the freeway from the most successful office project in Los Gatos not only makes sense, but it is the right location for this development. We have a chance to keep a homegrown company in our community. The Town had the vision ten years ago to provide Class A office space so Netflix could stay in Los Gatos, a decision that has allowed our town to prosper. Again, I am asking you to have that same vision for our future and approve this project. We are very fortunate that we have this opportunity. Allowing this project to go forward does not detract from the character of Los Gatos, it actually enhances its gateway. This is and will always be a commercial property which is why a modern office project is appropriate at this location. There will be a sizable annual increase in funding for schools from the new property tax as well as monies to the Town. It isn't all about the financial gains. It's about what is right for Los Gatos. Having a job base is the right thing for Los Gatos, and this is the right location for it. The Albright way project should be part of the future of Los Gatos; therefore, I ask you to please approve the Albright Way application as proposed. Sincerely, Karen Fagundes Joel Paulson From: J Torre <jtorre@prodigy.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:11 PM To: Joel Paulson; Council Cc: jtorre@prodigy.net Subject: Albright comments My name is Jeanne Torre. I am an owner/resident in the Charter Oaks community along Los Gatos Creek north of Lark Ave. Please add this letter to the Albright Way file. I have several concerns about how the Town of Los Gatos is handling the proposed redevelopment of the Albright Way property with its request for an exception to the town's building height limit. In particular, the request for story poles and the Draft Environmental Report (Draft-EIR). STORY POLES For a project of this magnitude, especially one that proposes to exceed the town's current building height limit, it is more than disappointing that true story poles were not required from the outset. Story poles to allow nearby residents to evaluate the visual and other impacts of the proposed office buildings and parking structure were requested by residents. What has been provided does not do that. For each building, a single cherry -picker has been placed to represent the whole building. A single point does not give any sense of where the bulk of these 4-story buildings will be. Especially for buildings #3 and #4 (whose top floors will look down on and into Charter Oaks residences) and the parking structure, the cherry -pickers have been placed nicely among the existing trees (many of which will be removed) in what would be the middle of a building's side or at a corner farthest from the neighboring residences. Building #4's is in the middle of east end of the building; building #3's is on its long east side and invisible among trees that will be replaced by the building; the parking structure's is on the east side of the structure when the entire south wall will be right behind Charter Oaks homes. I also question the height of the cherry -pickers, but will have to take it on faith that those for buildings 1-4 are indeed 65 ft high and the one for the parking structure 49 ft high. The inadequate response by the town to the need for story poles does not give a warm feeling about the town's attention to its residents. DRAFT EIR There are omissions and inconsistencies in the Draft EIR (D-EIR) related to traffic, tree removals, and "aesthetics" (lighting, views from nearby communities). • Traffic in the Lark Ave area already approaches gridlock at various times and days — not just at commute/school times. How the addition of thousands of trips from the Albright project alone (not to mention the other approved and proposed developments in the area) can yield no significant impact is beyond me. The D-EIR does not address overall Lark Ave flow or the flow of traffic in/out of Lark at all, including from the 5 residential neighborhoods along Lark between Hwy 17 and Winchester for which Lark Ave is the only way in/out. The report dismisses these "unsignalled" intersections as "rarely limiting the capacity of the roadway". What about the ability of vehicles to get from those intersections to a "roadway" (Lark Ave) that is at/beyond capacity? Even now, with the Albright property mostly empty, southbound Winchester into eastbound Lark backs up. Eastbound Lark backs up at Oka Rd, Garden Hill, Hwy 17, and Los Gatos Blvd. Westbound Lark backs up at University (on Monday April 1st at 3:30pm it was past Charter Oaks Drive onto the creek bridge), the left tun lane into University queues into the through lane, etc. The Level Of Service (LOS) rating of for these r intersections is "D". The only definition I found for "D" can best be paraphrased as "congested". How can that be acceptable? The traffic study MUST address unsignalled intersections in addition to signaled and ALL traffic flow (or lack of flow) on Lark in context of ALL the proposed and in -process projects. Traffic solutions are the responsibility of the town, not the developer of any one of the several projects in that part of town. • Tree removals — the D-EIR says more than 50% of the 569 trees now on the property will be removed. I could not find a map that identified which trees would be removed. Statements by the developer at info meeting on January 28th at Fisher School said those on the perimeter with Charter Oaks would be among those removed. However, statements in the EIR say views of the office towers from nearby residences will be screened by mature trees on the property perimeter. Not if they're removed. I have heard that the proposed replacement for the mature evergreens along the property perimeter is 36 inch box canary pines. Canary pines are not a good choice. Their needles are not dense enough to screen the buildings, fallen needles and cones are not just messy but also create a fire hazard, and it will take more than 30 years for them to reach the height of the trees they will replace. Another tree type such as redwood in at least 48 inch box is needed. • "Aesthetics" -- Views 6,7,8 from Charter Oaks Drive are at best misleading. "Mature trees on the site.... provide effective screening from nearby residences". However, as mentioned above, >50% of trees on property will be removed. Statements about removals made at the January 28th info meeting included those shown in these views as providing screening. The photos should be edited to add a simulation of the new buildings and mark the trees that will be gone. Back when PGE's substation next to the Albright property was approved, trees to screen it from view from northbound University at Lark were a requirement. The trees there are still short and thin and provide no screening. This history is not reassuring. Night-time lighting — this section addresses only exterior lighting such as floodlights. Night time light from offices is not addressed at all, nor is light from vehicle headlights. Again trees are said to reduce "potential for significant disturbance due to night time lighting". But many trees are to be removed. Will those remaining reduce the reach of lighting? On the Albright side of the Charter Oaks north perimeter fence where there will be many parking spaces and the multi -story parking structure, grade level is approximately at the height of the fence. Headlights from those spaces will shine right into Charter Oaks homes. These omissions and inconsistencies in the D-EIR do not give a warm feeling about its accuracy and the town's attention to the impacts of this project. SUMMARY Before this project is approved, I ask that the town -- • Require story poles to be erected that depict the entire side of the buildings that face Charter Oaks residences. • Redo the Draft EIR sections on traffic, tree removal, and aesthetics/views/lighting. Thank you. Jeanne Torre 306 Willow Hill Ct 2 Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-374-9813 jtorre@prodigy.net net 3 Joel Paulson From: Laura Saunders <laura@laurasaunders.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 12:11 AM To: Joel Paulson; Council Subject: Albright Way Office Campus Dear Mayor, Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I am writing to you to express my support for the Albright Way Office Campus. I believe that it is important in our town to provide a wide range of job opportunities. The campus proposal before you will give Los Gatos the chance to keep a Fortune 500 company growing in town. We have benefited tremendously from having a company such as Netflix in Los Gatos, and Albright is the only location that provides the town with chance to keep this company and/or attract new ones. The existing property is already an office park. For the last 20 years, we have said that this is the area where we want to see growth. It's a balance between the charm of the downtown and the economic drivers of the north part of town. The car dealerships along Los Gatos Blvd are leaving one by one and with them the stability of providing services to residents. Albright represents a win -win. It is the right land use (existing light industrial/office) in the right location. We need businesses and property owners who are willing to reinvest in our community, and the Albright team is ready to go. In return, Los Gatos gains high tech jobs, increased property values, and funding to help educate our children. I know there are those who say it's too big and will "ruin" Los Gatos; however, it is projects like this that generate the funding to maintain all of the things that we expect in our community such as road repairs, library hours, police and fire services. Over three years, this proposal has under gone extensive public review and exhaustive environmental study. The proposal has been reduced in height and scope from the previously approved development in response to the Council, Planning Commission and residents desire to have only office at this location. Now there is a request to further redesign the project and have more studies which will only create delays and end up costing Los Gatos its most significant corporate user. Los Gatos is a wonderful place to live, and Netflix is a part of it. I respectfully request your support for a bright future for our town that includes a modern corporate campus for a great company. Laura Saunders Lifestyle, Health and Wellness 408-656-8953 i Joel Paulson From: Charters, Mike @ San Jose <Mike.Charters@cbre.com> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 5:18 PM To: Joel Paulson Subject: Los Gatos - Albright Way. Mr. Paulson, I want to offer my support of the Albright Way office campus project. I believe the project is a critical economic development project for our town, creating jobs while allowing Netflix to remain, expand and grow in its hometown. Local restaurants and retail businesses will benefit from employees patronizing their establishments. In addition, over $1 million in annual property taxes directed to our schools and town services will favorably impact our entire community. Please vote to approve the Albright project! Mike Charters. Los Gatos Resident. 1 From: Jeff Zullo [mailto:iisurf22@vahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:47 PM To: Council Subject: Albright - comments regarding the DEIR Traffic study metric used. I support the efforts to reduce the impact of the Albright development and specifically have concerns regarding the potential increased traffic on local streets. There should be more focus placed on the DEIR data and calculations used to estimate traffic as I took a quick look at the report and it appears there were deliberate efforts to reduce these estimates: A couple examples: 1) The report references that several different classifications for commercial office parks and corresponding traffic level assumptions are available when generating an EIR traffic estimate. A corp headquarters classification would apply higher traffic activity factors and higher traffic impact numbers. The Albright EIR assigns a much more conservative Office Park designation for the calculations - and therefore assigns lower traffic factors. 2) Data from a 2008 ITE Trip generation report was utilized to estimate additional traffic for the site based on benchmarks in the valley. This data may reflect depressed office park traffic flows as the valley was at recession levels in 2008 and may not accurately reflect current or average occupancy/traffic activity. The conservative Office Park rate was again utilized for calculations to add back Underutilized Space Trip Generation Estimates. Respectfully, Jeff Zullo 119 La Rinconada Drive From: Kim & Bonnie Middlebrooks [mailto:mcbrooks2@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 9:20 AM To: Council Subject: Albright Way Mr. Paulson, I want to offer my support of the Albright Way office campus project. I believe the project is a critical economic development project for our town, creating jobs while allowing Netflix to remain, expand and grow in its hometown. Local restaurants and retail businesses will benefit from employees patronizing their establishments. In addition, over $1 million in annual property taxes directed to our schools and town services will favorably impact our entire community. Please vote to approve the Albright project! Kim & Bonnie Middlebrooks 354 Bachman Ct. From: Karee Weber [mailto:etainc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:03 AM To: Council Subject: Albright Office Park Impact I have owned a home and a business in Los Gatos for the past 20 years and I strongly oppose the Albright Office Park proposal. To build over a half a million square feet of office space together with a massive parking structure would destroy the character and quaintness of "the town of Los Gatos." The increased traffic congestion, noise and air pollution will be intolerable for many residents who moved to Los Gatos, and who continue to pay higher taxes to live here. We enjoy the quiet small town feel of this area. If we wanted to live in a highly commercialized area we could move to downtown San Jose, Sunnyvale or the Prunyard area and where property values and taxes are lower. The estimated 3000 additional daily vehicle trips that will result from this proposed project would be crippling to traffic and will turn my 10-minute trip to work into a 25-minute commute. The increased traffic would make bike riding as an alternative to auto transportation along Lark Ave. or Winchester unsafe. Moreover, to construct a structure four stories high would have a negative visual impact by greatly obstructing the view we currently enjoy in the North Los Gatos Neighborhoods. I desperately want to maintain our "small town" Los Gatos character" and I vehemently oppose any construction project of this magnitude. Sincerely, Karee Weber Joel Paulson From: Dean Duffy <dtduffy@msn.com> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:53 PM To: Joel Paulson Subject: Albright Way Attachments: Albright Way DTD.doc Mr. Joel Paulson Town Principal Planner Dear Mr. Paulson, I want to offer my support of the Albright Way office campus project. The project is a critical economic development project for LG, creating jobs while allowing Netflix to remain, expand and grow in its hometown. Local restaurants and retail businesses will benefit from employees patronizing their establishments. In addition, over $1 million in annual property taxes directed to our schools and town services will favorably impact our entire community. Please vote to approve the Albright project! Dean Duffy Escobar Avenue Los Gatos Joel Paulson From: Steinbock, Bob @ San Jose <Bob.Steinbock@cbre.com> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:20 PM To: Joel Paulson Subject: Netflix/Albright Project Mr. Paulson, As a lifelong Los Gatan, I want to offer my support of the Albright Way office campus project. I believe the project is a critical economic development project for our town, creating jobs while allowing Netflix to remain, expand and grow in its hometown. Local restaurants and retail businesses will benefit from employees patronizing their establishments. In addition, over $1 million in annual property taxes directed to our schools and town services will favorably impact our entire community. Please vote to approve the Albright project! Bob Steinbock I Senior Vice President I Lic. # 01111853 CBRE I Brokerage 225 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1050 I San Jose, CA 95113 T 408 453 7424 I F 408 437 3170 I C 408 218 7727 bob.steinbockacbre.com I www.cbre.com Please consider the environment before printing this email. This email may contain information that is confidential or attorney -client privileged and may constitute inside information. The contents of this email are intended only For the recipient(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use this transmission. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the transmission. Delivery of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privileges- 1 From: Suzanne Seibert [mailto:sseibertl@mac.com] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 10:28 AM To: Council Subject: Albright Office Park Impact Dear Town Council, As a homeowner in the Wimbledon Place HOA, I am opposed to the huge increase in traffic, noise and pollution as well as the decrease in home values the proposed Albright Office Park Project will create in my community. This project proposes 5, four story structures in an area that currently only contains 2 story structures. These proposed structures will change the look and feel of our community, from a nice family neighborhood to an industrial complex. This is totally unacceptable. This type of change will significantly lower home values in the area which will also lead to a decrease in school testing scores and a further decrease in home values. The school scores are already set to decrease due to the Affordable Housing project on Oka road, turning our neighborhood into an industrial complex will add considerably to this problem. The increase in traffic will cause congestion on Pollard Rd, Knowles, Winchester Blvd, Lark Ave, Hwy 85 and Hwy 17 entrances/exits. Adding 2200 employees traveling to and from Albright way will add roughly 4000 vehicle trips per day. I can't imagine trying to drive around my home contending with an additional 2000 cars on the road in such a short distance. I can also for -see that some of these vehicles will find the "short cut" from Pollard to Winchester via Wimbledon Dr, directly past my home (and the Rinconada Country Club golf course) and through our quiet community. Even a few hundred additional vehicles on this road would cause major traffic issues for those of us living here. Not to mention the pollution from so many cars. Please, Please, help to protect our quiet community and vote to reduce the proposed building project to a total of 350,000 sq ft, with only 2 story structures and mostly underground parking. Thank you, Suzanne Seibert Wimbledon Place Joel Paulson From: Bruce Horton <bhorton@kiddermathews.com> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 10:02 AM To: Joel Paulson Mr. Paulson, I want to offer my support of the Albright Way office campus project. I believe the project is a critical economic development project for our town, creating jobs while allowing Netflix to remain, expand and grow in its hometown. Local restaurants and retail businesses will benefit from employees patronizing their establishments. In addition, over $1 million in annual property taxes directed to our schools and town services will favorably impact our entire community. Please vote to approve the Albright project! Bruce Horton 236 Old Adobe Rd Bruce Horton Senior Vice President KIDDER MATHEWS 10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 550, San Jose, CA 95113 T 408.970. 9400 I D 408.588.2331 I F 408.970.0648 I C 408.655.1549 bhorton@kiddermathews.com I kiddermathews.com download vcard I view profile I Lic# 00696242 Please consider the environment before printing this email. 1 The Honorable Charles Erekson Chairperson Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: Support for the Albright Way Campus Dear Chairperson Erekson and Planning Commissioners: I am writing to you to express my support for the Albright Way Office Campus. Building a world -class office headquarters in Los Gatos is a source of pride, jobs, and revenue for our community and it is important that we retain Netflix. The proposal to upgrade the existing outdated Tight industrial office park has undergone extensive public review and environmental studies. It was concluded that there would be no significant impact to the community. Today's workforce demands require up-to-date facilities which can be obtained by reinvesting in this property and providing the space for Netflix to expand as well as be a complex that would attract other leading edge companies. This Albright Way proposal has been reduced in height and scope from the previously approved development. The benefits of this type of controlled growth and reuse of an existing office park are substantial. In addition to the jobs, the Town calculated that the project would generate millions of dollars in annual property tax revenue that would support town services such as public safety, road repairs, and library hours. One million dollars of the property tax would go to our local schools annually. I am asking you to approve the Albright Way Campus project. Sincerely, ( w& l ti C—j of (9,Y0 Kim & Bonnie Middlebrooks 354 Bachman Ct From: Julia Lombardi [mailto:juliabenjaminster©gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 12:54 PM To: Town Manager Subject: Albright Project To: Mayor and Town Council Town Manager Joel Paulson, Senior Planner We support the re -development of the Los Gatos Business Park LLC (proposed Albright Office Park) and urge the council to approve the Albright project. It is currently an office park and will continue to be one. The existing buildings are old and out of date and need to be replaced. Additionally, now with the project no longer has a residential component, there are benefits of this particular project to both school districts without any of the negative impacts and costs of increased student population associated with additional housing. As a former Los Gatos teacher and now parents of a student in the district, we feel the revenue is essential in helping to keep our schools GREAT! Thanks you for supporting our town's children and other residents who will benefit from the business taxes. Sincerely, Julia and David Lombardi Joel Paulson From: Tina Murray <tinammurray@earthlink.net> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 9:07 AM To: Joel Paulson Subject: Support the Netflix/Albright project I am writing to you today to urge your support of the Netflix/Albright proposal. I have been a Los Gatos resident since 1999 and appreciate the community and attentiveness to the quality and integrity of our schools. Netflix is a valuable partner in our community from both the employment and resource perspective. The Netflix/Albright project is the only large commercial -only project with no housing. It provides a financial windfall for our schools. I urge you to support it. Many Thanks, Tina Murray 15973 Shannon Road Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: Crumpton [mailto:crumpton3@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:46 PM To: Council Subject: Albright Office Park EIR Dear Town Council Members, Please reduce the mass and density of the proposed Albright Office Park. The written proposal sacrifice quality of life for For example: 250,000 sq. ft., 30 ft. height limit with mostly underground parking. These modifications will help to lessen the traffic congestion, pollution and visual impacts stated in the Environmental Impact Report. The owner of this property knew/knows what our necessary town limits were/are when he purchased the property and should not be allowed to sacrifice our town citizens' quality of life and property values. Respectfully, Tom & Cathy Crumpton 124 Las Astas Dr. Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 356-3632 crumpton3@verizon.net Joel Paulson From: Linda Nanez <lindananez@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 8:42 PM To: Joel Paulson Cc: Planning Subject: Netflix project We urge you to help see that the Netflix project is approved. The benefits of this particular project to both school districts without any of the negative impacts and costs of increased student population associated with additional housing are not only significant, but in light of the other projects coming our way, they are crucial. As a former Los Gatos teacher and now grandparents of students in the district, we feel the revenue is essential in helping to keep our schools GREAT! Thanks you for supporting our town's children and other residents who will benefit from the business taxes. Sincerely, Tony and Linda Nanez 135 Mary Way LG Joel Paulson From: Bonnie Westman <b2westman@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 8:29 AM To: Joel Paulson Subject: Albright Development Hello Mr. Paulson, My name is Bonnie Westman and I have lived in Los Gatos for 7 years. I have lived in many cities during my lifetime but none can compare to this. People in this community are highly supportive of one another and work hard to maintain excellent schools and vibrant commercial activity. Why anyone would oppose the Albright Development is simply mind -boggling to me. This project has been tested and evaluated extensively. The results of the studies showed the following: + all of the impacts associated with this development can be mitigated to a less than significant level. + any traffic impacts can be addressed and improvements will be made that keep the traffic at the same level it is today regardless of more cars. + the proposal is consistent with the goals of the Town Council, the Sustainability Plan, and the long-standing Vasona Light Rail Section of the Los Gatos General Plan that says this established commercial area is where we want to see intensification of land uses. In addition, our community will benefit substantially from having a development that would allow job growth while producing a financial windfall for our schools. I urge you to approve the Albright Development because it is absolutely the right decision. Many thanks, Bonnie Westman 16516 Shannon Rd (408)356-6965 t ,on Jim Heerwagen <jheerwagen@me.com> nt: Monday, April 08, 2013 10:03 PM To: Joel Paulson Subject: Netflix I live at 54 Chestnut Ave. I am in complete support of the Netflix project and would hope to see this pass. It will bring tax revenue and jobs to our town. It will support the residential real estate market. I would be very disappointed if the Council does not approve this project. Jim Heerwagen 415-412-1504 jheerwagen(ai me.com My concern in this lei. is in regards to the traffic studies Lark Ave. With the proposed Albright development, the North 40, the possible Affordable housing on Oka Rd., and the 5 new developments on Los Gatos Blvd that are not occupied yet, the traffic impacts on Lark Ave will be substantial. There are 5 neighborhoods, the Arroyo Grande Way neighborhood, the Garden Hill Dr. neighborhood, the Oka Rd. neighborhood, the Mill Rd neighborhood, and the Charter Oaks Dr. neighborhood that only have one way in and out of there communities and that is by way of Lark Ave. I know for a fact that currently when the light turns red at Lark Ave and University Ave for traffic going west on Lark Ave. the cars back up past Charter Oaks Dr. and block the residents from entering and exiting their community. The same thing occurs for the Arroyo Grande Way neighborhood when the light turns red at Oka Rd and Lark Ave for cars traveling east on Lark Ave— the cars backup past Arroyo Grande Way. I have also heard the residents of the Oka Rd neighborhood mention how difficult it is to get out of there community with the JCC and Los Gatos Athletic Club traffic —at times having to wait two lights to get onto Lark Ave. I spoke with a resident in the Mill Rd neighborhood, who also expressed concern about being able to turn left out of his community onto Lark Ave because there is too much traffic and no signal. The traffic studies are only required to consider signalized intersections. And some of the traffic studies analyzing the signalized intersections on Lark Ave are questionable in regards to their accuracy. I don't feel confident or comfortable with the current information available to us regarding the traffic impacts on Lark Ave. We are having problems now on Lark Ave — how is adding another 3,126 additional vehicle trips with just the proposed Albright Business Park, thousands of vehicle trips with the North 40, an unknown amount of vehicle trips with the possible affordable housing on Oka Rd., and 700 vehicle trips with the 3 new medical buildings on Los Gatos Blvd not going to be a significant impact on Lark Ave and the surrounding streets? How can the affordable housing studies allow only 1 car per unit? I recall in one meeting that these affordable housing units are for teachers, firefighter, grocery store clerk that work in the Los Gatos community. They will all have cars — maybe not expensive cars, but they will have cars for transportation and the majority if not all will live with someone else — a wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend, teenager that will also have cars. So, more realistically there will be 2 cars per unit. How can some of these cumulative traffic studies keep coming up with a less than significant impact? And if there is a significant impact to traffic as in the Albright way DEIR, the mitigation measures are weak. I am here tonight requesting that The planning department and or planning commission evaluate the non signalized intersections on Lark Ave. that were not considered in the traffic analysis and look at mitigation measures that will ensure safe and timely egress and ingress of the residents who live in the 5 neighborhood, which have Lark Ave. as their only access in and out of their communities. Thank you, Anne Robinson Jo& Paulson From: Eric Connor <erconnOr@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:57 PM To: Joel Paulson; anne4pt@aol.com Subject: Albright Way Project: Concern & Proposal Attachments: 130325_Albright Way Project.pdf Dear Mr. Joel Paulson, It was a great achievement by the Charter Oaks Community to get the Story Poles for the Albright Way Project. I include a file that describes an assesement on the shade that will be generated by the new buildings. As a reminder, I wrote to you earlier on the "Out of Trend" building heights of the proposed buildings for the Albright Way Project. In this email, I would like to draw your attention that, because of the extreme heights of the proposed buildings, together with the elevation because of a hill; the buildings will throw a shadow directly over my house and other houses in the comunity of Charter Oaks. Together with my wife Linda Sundberg we live in a 960 square foot, 1 story town house. The proposed buildings to be built in the Albright Way Project will be 4 story and from my point of view 85 foot in height. Yesterday with some neighbores, we looked at the Story poles and determined that the sun is below the height of the story poles from our housing positions at 6.00pm on the 24th of March 2013. This means that when the building is built, we will be living directly in its shadow. The atmosphere at this end of Williw Hill Court will change. Further more, the lovely and relaxing sky scape, that I currently have from my back yard and also from windows in my house will dramatically change to a view of looking at office buildings. I dont know the rules associated with the town of Los Gatos, but it does not seem fair that a developer with money can build a building that is so dramatically different from the surrounding architecture and ambiance can go forward. As my slide deck demonstrates, I do not think that the Environmental Assasement Plan was conducted thoroughly. I live in this house right next to the building and I am part of the environment. I dont believe that my wife and I were considered. To top the distress of the building on our day to do schedules; Linda is pregnant. And we are due our first baby in August. We have been living in this lovely community since 2005. I have been made aware that the building will start around this time. This will be the same time that Linda and I will have to spend more time at home with a young baby. It is very likely during this time that there will be alot of noise and dust polution. My house is very close to the project. I am deeply concerned. If Linda, my wife was an endangered bird, she would get more attention (!). If you can help us in anyway to improve on this situation, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Eric Connor, 308 Willow Hill Court, Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: Joel Paulson <jpaulsonMosgatosca.gov> To: Eric Connor <erconn0ravahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:22 AM Subject: RE: Albright Way Project: Concern & Proposal Mr. Connor - Thank you for youre-..fail. I will forward it to our Environme..41 Consultant and the issues will be addressed in the Response to Comments that will be part of the EIR that goes to the Planning Commission and Town Council. If you would like to meet and discuss the proposed project let me know. Thanks. Joel Paulson, AICP Principal Planner Town of Los Gatos (408) 354-6879 IMPORTANT NOTICES: Building and Planning Counter hours are from 8:00 AM to 1:00 PM Monday through Friday. From: Eric Connor [mailto:erconnOr@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:44 PM To: Joel Paulson Subject: Albright Way Project: Concern & Proposal Dear Mr. Joel Paulson, Please take a look at the attatched file. I am living in the community of Charter Oaks and more specifically i live with my wife Linda Sundberg at 308 Willow hill Court Los Gatos CA 95032. The Albright Way Project is particularly distressing as the proposal includes the building of a 4 story building right next to hour 1 story house! Further more the proposed building's of the project are on a hill overloiking my tiny house. Please could you encourage the architects to make two story buildings. This also will be fitting with the surround buildings of Los Gatos. I have heared that the Netlix site has 4 stories, but these buildings ae on the other side of I-Ighway 85. 4 story buildings on the South side of the highway today dont exist. Please could you encourage the architects to make their buildings blend in with the small town and village feeling of Los Gatos and not encourage a high density inner city feeling. This is not the reason why I moved to Los Gatos. Thank you very much for your help, Eric Connor, 308 Willow Hill Court, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone: 1-408-391-7328 2 EiliSSEMI a. o o ted . . rel 0 . ..4, ro sa tor Poe:: anaC e mama Q) co 0) c ai co 4-c5 E °47z uv) E a. 0 0 rr ^^. Vi . . 0 cn CO 4— c '47.5 ro 0) 0 c 0) CO CO 0 4- 0) 0.0 a 0) 4-) ro E uJ E 0 (13 m N _c 1— rn t:zt. N siao 0) 1 oco L-- _c c• o • Fr) CI) 4- C 0 c• a/ o 22 ▪ E ✓ a) o w -a co c o o (/) 0 ct —0 C13 _C C (1) O 14— Ct3 • = E w a) co w • a-) a) co _c E 0 ?2 w N 0 0 OA c) ® E ® E E $ Q, a) ® > cn ® a) CC ( -a CO LA ei N ai CO "Cia L Q N 03 -a w cu O 03 d 0 N idi N B O $ c2 4-, O cn fp a 0 c f8c 2 O rij cri dj N E W � to - LE d) ®O L d-+ O O Q Eric Connor & Linda Sundburg's house 0 Q1 o -o 01 ttO ® 0) %a: fa •— f6 O l- 4.9 ® E •M C .® O C 0) 0) 0) 0 E 0. 0 a� a) -a cC c 0 f6 0 • o CU U t O �' 0. 0 2 o L E cn C.0 tiCTMV • ih 5 ,p {j�{{t�Nd �ll liW -- _-- 1— rnriihiPifi Mliato e O 0 0 1 O U) M 01 c c6 M el N rn V N VECH 00 0 M t1 la c%1 e, tt CZ o 14' cn CD p C0 .w ® c c 0 o ij a UJ w c ® 2 L!J LO ® - 45 co Z This Page Intentionally Left Blank Comment on the Draft EIR Albright Office Park from Lee Quintana Joel Paulson, Senior Planner Town of Los Gatos 101 E Main Street Mayor Barbara Spector Vice Mayor Steve Leonardis Councilperson Diane McNutt Councilperson Joe Pirzynski Council Person Marcia Jensen March 21, 2013 RE: Comments on Albright Office Park EIR (State Clearinghouse #2012982020) From: Lee Quintana 5 Palm Ave Los Gatos, California (408) 354-7808 The following are my comments on the Draft EIR: Order of Comments: CEQA: Purposes and Policies (1) History of project subject to the CEQA lawsuit (2) EIR Project Definition (3) Project Description (4) Consistency with General Plan Land Use Designation (5) Consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies (6 & 7) Aesthetics Impacts (8 & 9) Traffic (10) Alternatives to the Project (11) Items 1,2,3,5,10 were addressed in my March 14th letter, however the discussion here has been revised and expanded. Items 5, 6 & 7 on General Plan consistency and project alternatives have been added. And hopefully there are fewer typos, missing words etc. I understand that the Town is not required to address these comments in writing since they are being submitted after the close of the comment period. However, my hope is both the Planning Commission and Town Council will read them prior to the public 1 Comment on the Draft EIR Albright Office Park from Lee Quintana hearings on the Albright Office Park applications and that they will be considered in the decision making process? 1. The EIR does not meet the intent of some of CEQA's basic purpose and policies: The following CEQA sections apply: 15002, 15003, 1504(b), 1506(a)(f)(g)(n)(o)(q)(r)(s) (t), 1540, 1541, 1543, 15150, 15064, 15064.7 and 15378 and are applicable to varying degrees: (1) Project plans are not available with the DEIR in the Clerks Office or Library. Plans are available in the Planning Department if you know to ask for them. (2) Writing is not clear or easily understandable, information or data not presented in a rapidly understandable format (3) Assumptions not stated or clear, logic of analysis difficult to follow, and conclusions not supported by fact or analysis (4) EIR contains numerous errors, omission, repetition, discrepancies, misleading statements, and unsupported statements or conclusion (5) Project definition and project description do not conform to CEQA definition (6) Representative examples of the above are found throughout these comments A. When does the cumulative sum of omissions, errors, inconsistencies, misleading statements, lack of supported conclusions etc. reach a point where in the EIR no meets CEQA's basic purpose to inform and disclose, and no longer represents a good faith attempt? B. Wouldn't the EIR be more consistent with CEQA's intent and purpose (a) If the property description information were more detailed and better organized (b) Contained a detailed data sheet comparing the existing and proposed project (c) Included an appropriately scaled vicinity map showing locations mentioned in the text (d) Presented more information in a readily understandable format such as graphic, lists and tables (e) Included less repetition and eliminated irrelevant information and discussion (f) Deleted 1/2 true statements (g) Clearly stated assumptions and supported conclusions 2. Section 1.2.1 Project History: The project history is inadequate: 1 I apologize for this late submittal and the garbled first one dated March 14. I was ready to submit my complete comments but managed to make them disappear into thin air just before I planned to send them about noon on March 14th. I spent about an hour trying to find them, gave up and started over on new comments. I did recreate some comments which I sent before the deadline. Last Sunday I pulled my sent comments up only to discover they were my first rough draft of "new comments". I have to laugh because my "lost it/cant find it in my computer" it sounds very like the age old excuse of "the dog ate my paper" except I take responsibility for my inaptness with the computer and some just some stupid mistakes I. 2 Comment on the Draft EIR Albright Office Park from Lee Quintana (1) There is no adequate description of the project reviewed by the Court, nor an adequate summary of the Court's Judgement and Order (2) Only maximum height of 85' is used to describe the project.This is not only an incomplete description, but is also a misleading one. Unless already familiar with the project and the CEQA lawsuit a reader could assume height was the only issue with the project or the only one address in the CEQA case. (3) The link to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is incorrect, and no link is provided to Court documents or its Case Number. (4) The Courts continuing jurisdiction over the EIR is not discussed. (5) Taken together all of the above do not provide an adequate context for the EIR. A. Why doesn't the EIR contain a full project description, and a summary of the Court's Judgement and Order? B. Why was the incorrect link provided to the IS/MND and no link provided to relevant Court documents? C. How does this section of the EIR represent a "good faith effort at full disclosure"? 3. Section 3.4 Project definition and description: The project definition and project description are not consistent with CEQA (Section 15378 (a)(b)(d): (1) A "project" as defined by CEQA, is the "whole of the action". In this case the CEQA "project "is the Planned Development Overlay application (PD 12-001) plus the Architecture and Site application (A&S 12-78) plus any subsequent approvals or actions required to implement the "project", if approved. (2) The EIR defined the project many ways, including as the PD application, an A&S application, or as both applications. (3) The A&S also is discussed as if consistency with the Commercial Design Guidelines or applicable General Plan Land Use or Community Design goals and policies is a separate discussion deferred to a later time, which could explain why the EIR lacks of analysis of the site plan or architecture. (4) CEQA requires, in this case, the A&S application (the development application) to be used to describe the project for purposes of environmental analysis. A. Wouldn't it avoid confusion if the CEQA definition of "project" were used through out the EIR? B. Wouldn't it be more consistent if the A&S application used to discribe the "project" (consistent with CEQA), and referred to the PD only when it differs from the A&S application and in the applicable discussions of Plans and Policies? For example " The parking ratio shown in the proposed A&S application is 3.5, which is higher than the 3.3 parking ratio proposed by the PD application. 4. Chapter 3 . Project Description: This chapter does not adequately describe the project (1) Proposed uses identified under 3.4.1 Land Use are not consistent with the project plans on file in the Planning Department 3 Comment on the Draft EIR Albright Office Park from Lee Quintana (2) The "project" is not defined by the CEQA definition of project, nor is the A&S application used for the project description. (also see item 3 above) (3) The NOP states that "The project would include employee serving amenities but these amenities would not be open to the public" (Appendix 1 p. A-14) It is not clear whether this applies to ancillary uses as well. (4) Section 3.2.1 incorrectly describes office and residential use as immediately north of SR 85. The SCVWD storage yard is immediately north of SR 85. (5) Figure 3-2, Project Site Boundaries, does not include enough surrounding area to place the project in the context with the area or to show locations identified in the text. (it is not a vicinity map) (6) The project data and information provided is insufficient to assess the adequacy of the impact analysis or mitigation in Chapters 4 & 5., nor as a basis for comparing the existing project to the proposed project. (7) A Data table is not provided for quick understanding of the project or to compare it to the existing project. (8) Neither the assumptions used to formulate the Town's Objectives or the discussion are clear or easy to understand. (Section 3.3) It appears only the VLR and Sustainability Elements appear to have been considered. It is not clear whether the conclusion reached to formulate the Town's Objective Statement carryover to the other parts of the EIR, for example: Project Consistency analysis, vision statement, or the alternatives analysis. However, it seems the analysis starts with the assumption that the proposed project is consistent with "small town character" and is compatible with all surrounding land uses. (9) The mixing of fact, interpretation and analysis distracts, and in this context may be perceived as a bias in favor of the project. With the exception of Section 3.3 Project Objective Chapter 3 should be limited to factual information. For example: Definition of a PD zoning, comparison with Netflix, discussion of design goals, proximity to the future light rail station are more appropriate in Chapter 4. (10)Project phasing is not consistent with phasing required to mitigate Air Quality Impacts A. Why doesn't the definition of the project and the project description conform to CEQA Guidelines? B. Why doesn't Section 3.4.1 Land Use explain the differences between ancillary uses and office serving uses, whether ancillary uses include retail uses and whether ancillary uses would be open to the public as in the prior project. C. Why are there inconsistencies between the project description in Chapter 3 and the project plans? D. Wouldn't the project and its description be more rapidly understood if the following were deleted from or added to Chapter 3: (a) Section 3.4 Divide into two sections: 1) definition of project (CEQA) and 2) project description (CEQA ) (b) Delete discussion of light rail, except relating to its location (Section: 3.2.1) (c) Delete or move the discussion of parking survey and site approval process (Section 3.4.4) 4 Comment on the Draft EIR Albright Office Park from Lee Quintana (d) Delete reference to design goals, intent of architecture, definition of a PD overlay zoning and comparison with Netflix (Section 3.4.2) (e) Add a detailed project data sheet with a column comparing it to the existing development. (f) Add an appropriately scaled and labeled vicinity map (g) Add a figure showing the General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Designations for the project and the project vicinity. (h) Add a figure showing (and limited to) the current lane configuration including the location of any median strips. (i) Add a figure showing the proposed roadway configuration for the proposed signalized intersection and the area along Winchester between Lark and the SR 85 exit ramp (or add to Traffic in Chapter 4 and reference here) A. Why weren't The Land Use and Community Design Elements used to formulate the Town's Objectives? B. Why is the Vesting Tentative Map, rather than a tentative map, listed as a required approval in Table 3-2? E. Would a Vesting Tentative Map limit the Town's ability to require additional mitigation at subsequent project phases should laws or regulation change to require different mitigation for traffic impacts or air quality etc? If so wouldn't that shift the burden for providing future mitigation to the Town? F. If the project were proposed as phased over more than 5 years would any impacts analysis conclusions be different conclusions and/or would the project be subject to possible additional mitigation in effect at the start of each phase? G. Will the Planning Commission and then the Council hear both parts of the "project" (PD and A&S) on the same agenda or will they hold separate meeting for the PD and A&S? 5. Section 4.1.2. Conformance with the General Plan Land Use Dia rg am: The EIR does not adequately address the consistency of the project with the General Plan Land Use Designation intensity restrictions. The project is not consistent with the Light Industrial Land Use Designation maximum height restriction or 35'. This conclusion is supported, in part, by the following: (1) The General Plan defines intensity for the Light Industrial Land Use Designation as up to 50% land coverage (which the project meets as currently interpreted) and a maximum height of 35' (which the project currently does not meet)(GP page LU-14), (2) The proposed height of 65', even though 20' lower than the original project, is still 30 feet above the maximum allowed, and is therefor not consistent with its General Plan Light Industrial Land Use Designation. (3) The discussion in the EIR on Density and Intensity considers only building coverage not height(EIR page 4.1-4). (4) Council conducted a detailed, line by line, review of the Draft 2020 General Plan that resulted in many changes. The following are among the numerous changes made prior to adopting the 2020 General Plan. 5 Comment on the Draft EIR Albright Office Park from Lee Quintana (5) New language added to the 2020 General Plan: • New language states that a compatible land use from any other zoning district maybe allowed in any non-residential zoning district where authorized by a Planned Development Overlay Zone. As stated this applies to land use not intensity of use. New language also added defining intensity limits to include either a maximum percent land coverage or FAR, and a maximum height limit (GP page LU-14). No exceptions were identified and this language clearly distinguish between land use and land use intensity. New language was added to define a PD Overlay Zone (GP page LU-16). It states a PD ".... is a specially tailored development plan and ordinance which designates the zoning regulations for the accompanying project, sets specific development standards, and ensures that zoning and General Plan are consistent." (emphasis added). I understand this to mean zoning regulations and development standard of the underlying Land Use Designation can be varied but only if the PD overlay is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation intensity limitations and the goals and policies of the General Plan. (4) Moved Goal LU-1" To preserve, promote and protect the existing small-town character and quality of life in Los Gatos" form the Community Development Element to the Land Use Element to be first goal in the General Plan. (5) Deleted the Action Item to study reducing the height limit in the Downtown (6) Deleted the Action Item directing staff to study adding FAR, or substituting FAR for height, when determining intensity. (7) Reorganized and modified the Vasona Light Rail Element. (8) All the above indicate that the Council after carefully considered of the entire General Plan and did not choice to add language to enabling height exemptions, to exempt the VLR area from the goals and policies of the Land Use Element and Community Design Element or for a PD to be inconsistent with the underlying Land Use Designation. (9) A. Given the Council's careful review of the 2020 General Plan wouldn't the Council have added additional language to the General Plan if its intent was to exempt the VLR area from the current height limits or, any goals or policies of the Land Use and Community Design Elements ? B. Why wouldn't a General Plan text amendment specifically exemption this site from the 35' height restriction of the Light Industrial Land Use Designation, if Council were to chose to approve the project'? 6. Section 4.1: Land Use. Plans and Policies: Los Gatos General Plan: Land Use and Consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies: Project Consistency Analysis: The EIR does not adequately assess consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies. The following statements are made knowing the Council is the final arbiter in this matter (1) This section seems more a repetition of the project description than an analysis of consistency with the General Plan. 6 Comment on the Draft EIR Albright Office Park from Lee Quintana (2) The discussion of small town character at the top of page 4.1-8 refers back to the discussion of the Vision Statement earlier in the EIR where the projects's General Plan consistency appears to have been determined by comparing the project with the Vision Statement instead of comparing it with the more specific Goals and Policies themselves (even though the General Plan Goals and Polices are used to implement the Town's vision. (3) It appears that prior to compiling the Project Consistency Table staff compared the project to the Vision Statement and determined the project is consistent with small town character and buildings taller than 35' may /might be appropriate in the VLR area, prior to doing the general plan consistency analysis. This turns the process on its head and renders the project consistency analysis meaningless. (4) Normally a project is compared to relevant General Plans and goals and policies and consistency is determined by a project implements a policy or works toward reaching a goal. (5) The assumptions and the reasoning behinds staff's determination of the process and how the conclusion were reach are not easily followed and are not well supported. A. Shouldn't assumptions upon which conclusions are based be clearly defined and easily understandable? B. Shouldn't the analysis of consistency be based on a comparison of the project with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan not the vision statement? C. Shouldn't the analysis be confined to a specific goal or policy (groups of related ones)? D. Couldn't conclusion reached focused on individual goals different from those reached when "balancing" is considered?. E. Shouldn't any discussion of balancing goals and policies be placed at the end of the Project Consistency Analysis table? 7. Section 4.1: Proiect Con licies and organization (2) Policy LU-1.3 (trees vegetation etc) The analysis states the project is located in an area characterized as intensively developed. • This is misleading as the only intensely developed site in the area is Netflix/ Aventino (400-500' to the north), Having said that, the discussion here does not seem relevant to LU1.3. • LU-6.5 and LU-6.8: (Consistency with neighborhood) Courtside, County Fire Department and Charter Oaks, are not discussed, projects all in closer proximity to Albright than Los Gatos Gateway (Netflix/Aventino) . (3) VLR-6.1: (Consistency with Commercial Design Guidelines) The Common Design Guidelines from the Commercial Design Guidelines are listed but no analysis was made to determine whether or nor the project is consistent with them. (4) VLR-6.2: (minimize traffic and preserve sufficient open space) This is not a discussion of how the project is designed to minimized traffic impacts, but rather a discussion of how the project mitigates its traffic impacts. There is also no 7 Comment on the Draft EIR Albright Office Park from Lee Quintana explanation of how a project that increases square footage by 120% (not counting the garage) but only decrease in building coverage 2% and non - permeable areas by less than a 1 % preserves sufficient open space. (5) Goal CD-2: (New development consistent with surrounding development): A discussion of consistency with Charter Oaks, Smith Ranch, Courtside Townhouses, Courtside Club, County Fire or the mobile homes across Los Gatos Creek included here? (6) Env.-12-3: (Design to reduce air pollution etc.)This discussion does not address how impacts are reduced but rather how they are mitigated. (7) CD-3.9: This addresses everything but whether the garage has a low profile. (8) LU-4.1 (I tit grate planning for North Forty area Los Gatos Blvd Vasona Light Rail area and Downtown -This was new language added to the General Plan) The discussion does not explain how or when this integrated planning was done. A. Why doesn't the Community Design Element follow Land Use Element in the Project Consistency Analysis table (starting on page 4.1-7) as it does in the General Plan B. Why isn't there a subsection for the Community Development Element either here or under Section 4.2 Aesthetics? C. Why is the subsection Proposed Architecture and Site Design at the end of the existing setting section and why doesn't it include an analysis/discussion of the design rather than just repeat of the project description? D. Why isn't a discussion of the Town's Commercial Design Guideline included in 4.1.2 Regional and Local Plans and Policies? They are relevant and/or closley tied to Land Use. E. Why isn't the Community Design Element listed after the Land Use Element in the Project Consistency Analysis Table (starts on p. 4-1-8, i.e in the same order they appears in the The General Plan). F. Why doesn't the Project Analysis Table list (but not discuss) all the other Goals and Policies included in other sections of Chapter 4 and reference where they are found. Or alternatively list all applicable goals and policies in this table rather than in each subsection and refer the reader back to the table in this section. G. Based on the discussion for VLR-2.3 above how does the project preserve sufficient open space? H. Why wasn't Charter Oaks, Smith Ranch, Courtside and the Fire Department included the discussion of Goal CD-2 8. Section 4.2 Aesthetics: The EIR fails to adequately assess project impacts and mitigation for visual impacts, including impacts to scenic resources, scenic vistas, changes to the site's existing character or the aesthetics of the proposed design: (1) On Wednesday March 13, 2013 I viewed the site from multiple points, although I did not view the site from the Creek Trail. It was evident, even with the existing tree canopy and the limited number of cranes on site, that the visual impact of the project will be greater than that shown in the EIR. At a minimum, it appears 8 Comment on the Draft EIR Albright Office Park from Lee Quintana buildings #1 and #4, and the garage will substantially alter views along the Winchester corridor, along SR 85, along the south side of the SCVWS site, along the south side of the offices and residential north of the SCVWD site, from the Courtside driveway and parking lot opposite the proposed new signalized entrance, and from Los Gatos Blvd at the SR 85 overpass. It will also be visiable from University and Lark. The placement of cranes (or cherry pickers), rather than story poles, and their limited number, does not provide an adequate on -site representation of the project's visual impacts. The cranes do not show building footprint nor adequately represent the mass, scale of the structures. (2) Placing the cranes on the site at the very end of the public review period did not allow adequate time for public comments. (3) Definitions of Scenic, landscape and vista: • Scenic: Features of a landscape that exist in a certain area, general appearance of a place, the aggregate of features that give character to a landscape. • Landscape: A view, an expanse of scenery that an be seen in a single view. • Vista: An extensive area of land regarded as being visually distinct. (4) Using the above definitions it appears the existing scenic landscape and existing scenic vista, (when approached from the north or east), would change from background mountains views with views of trees in the foreground (i.e. nothing but greenery to the skyline) to one with reduced mountain views and a foreground dominated by large buildings to the skyline. The foreground trees would be gone or no longer visible. This would be a substantial change. (5) Even the more distance view from Los Gatos Blvd heading south over SR 85 will be substantially altered and the structures will also be visible from the intersection of Lark and University. (6) Over half of the 579 "protected" trees on the site, as well as most smaller landscaping trees and shrubs will be removed during demolition and construction. The structures replacing current building will be several times taller an substantially more massive. (7) The Albright Project will substantially alter scenic resources and substantially change the character of the site. (8) There is no discussion of the four proposed buildings and their identical architecture, each by itself taller and with a larger floor plate than any other single building in Town.The Utility Plan shows a joint trench in the same area as the Stormwater Control Plan show a bio-retention area. I. Shouldn't the public review period be extended? J. Shouldn't this section of the EIR be revised to indicate substantial impacts? K. Shouldn't the height, mass, and footprint and rooflines be better represented on site prior to any hearing on the project. L. At is the height of the garage crane? 35' or 49'? M. Wouldn't a lower and smaller Project Alternative substantially reduce or avoid the visual impacts? N. How will the visual presentation on site be improved? 9 Comment on the Draft EIR Albright Office Park from Lee Quintana O. How do the four, identical buildings, each larger than any other building in, impact the visual character of the site and is design consistent with the goals and policies of the Community Design Element? P. Is it possible for a joint trench and a bio-retention basin to be located in the same area adjacent to the Creek Trail. Do either of those uses, either singly, or in the same location limit the ability to plant species that will block or substantially screen the parking lot and office building from the trail? I. Cumulative visual impacts: The EIR does not adequately evaluate the cumulative impacts to the views of the surrounding mountains: (1) 1 disagree that cumulative visual impacts are localized. Over time, the views of green whether of trees or mountains, has preceptively decrease as one drives north or south on Winchester and Los Gatos Blvd. Views have also been altered in the east/west directions. (2) Since most people move along these streets in a car the cumulative loss of views along the Winchester/Los Gatos Blvd corridors is better evaluated from a car rather than from a static viewpoint. (3) The area analyzed is too localized (4) If all structures built over the last ten years, plus approve and pending projects were considered together the result may be a substantial loss of mountain views or greenery from all directions along the Winchester and Los Gatos Blvd corridors. A. Why doesn't the cumulative analysis cover a larger geographic area and a longer time period. 10. Section 4.6: Traffic: The EIR does not adequately assess traffic impacts and mitigation measures: (1) Los Gatos has a constrained roadway system with few east/west or north/east connections. The few east/west routes across town (Highway 9, Blossom Hill, Lark, Los Gatos Almaden Road ) require a jog onto Los Gatos Blvd or Winchester. The two major routes entering Town from the north (Los Gatos Blvd/ Main Street and Winchester/Santa Cruz) narrow as they continue south and meet at the corner of Santa Cruz and Main as two lane roads. As traffic increases there are limited alternative for traffic to chose alternate routes. The Town does not have a grid system allowing traffic can spread along numerous roadway and there is a bottleneck where Main and Santa Cruz meet. The EIR is silent on whether and how this constrained street pattern is factored into the CMP model when determining LOS. (2) The definition of LOS significance thresholds in Section 4.6.3 is not consistent with with General Plan Policy TRA3.3 or that in the Project Consistency Analysis. (3) Since the Town does not have adopted thresholds of significance for queuing or operation aspect of traffic the EIR concludes there is no CEQA impact. 10 Comment on the Draft EIR Albright Office Park from Lee Quintana (4) The EIR traffic analysis omits readily available information relevant to analysis, contains errors, misleading statements and inconsistencies. (5) The VTA Traffic Analysis (TIA) Guidelines state: "It is not intended that TIAs following the VTA CMP TIA Guidelines will provide all information required for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" (emphasis added) (6) Traffic counts were collected at the project entrances but were not used to calculate traffic generated by the proposed project (Appendix F TIA p. 30). The EIR states: "Since the existing buildings on the project site have the potential to generate traffic that is equivalent to that estimated based on ITE rates, the difference between the ITE estimated trip generation and existing entrance counts was added to the background conditions in accordance with VTA Guidelines." While this statement it correct, it is none -the -less misleading. The CMP Guidelines state that vacant or underutilized sites with development rights may be included in the background, it does not say that it is required (p.23). The Town has used actual counts in the past. (7) Footnote 3 on page 4.6-10 of the EIR states "Under case law, lead agencies are not obligated to assess traffic impacts against a baseline consisting solely of existing conditions if substantial evidence indicates that the use of other measures would be an appropriate way to determine a project's traffic impacts. Staff's has stated in the past that the Town uses CMP methodologies for determining LOS but has not provided not provided evidence of why that is the appropriate way to measure LOS impacts in Los Gatos, (8) The VTA guidelines allow a trip credit for projects located within a 2000' safe walking distance from a building entrance to either a light rail station or a major bus route (6 or more trips per hours during peak travel hours (hh:/www.vta.org/ cmp/pdf/tia/guidelines odfl (9) Bus Route 48 serves the project with 30 minute lead times during peak travel hours. Although the EIR states this is frequent bus service, I doubt that would be . (page 4.6.-3). (10)The EIR places the project within a few hundred feet of the future light rail station (Section 4.1.2) Again this is a correct statement but only when measured from the NW corner of the site directly across the freeway. This would not be the safe walking distance. (11)The EIR also states the project is within 2000' of the future rail station. However, the project does not appear to be within a 2000' safe walking distance using the VTA guideline, which would start the walk from the entrance of the nearest building to Winchester (building #4), follow the pedestrian pathways shown on the A&S Landscaping Plan, cross Winchester at the new light and continuing north on the western side of Winchester. My calculation puts the 2000' mark well short of the station. (12)While the EIR frequently references the projects proximity to the future light rail station as Tess than 2000', as the project is more than 2000' and is not on a qualified bus line it does not qualify as a TOD, or for a trip reduction credit based on being a TOD. While no trip reduction use used for the traffic analysis a trip reduction was assumed in mitigation for greenhouse gases and/or air quality. Even though the project was not given a credit in the traffic analysis the frequent 11 Comment on the Draft EIR Albright Office Park from Lee Quintana reference to the future station may give the impression it will be completed before the project is occupied. (13)In addition, the Supplemental EIS/EIR for the Vasona Light Rail Extension does not identify a start time for the Vasona Light Rail Extension,or available funding. The VTA Transportation Plan 2035 classifies this project as financially constrained and completion of the extension does not appear to be likely within the construction time frame of the Albright project. As stated in the responses to NOP comments (Appendix 1) the Light Rail Extension is not part of this project. (14)Caltrans and the VTA use the same methodology, however Caltrans uses a lower threshold of significance. For freeway segments the Caltrans threshold is the transition between C and D (Appendix 1). VTA's is is F (15)In their response to the NOP Caltrans requested that secondary impact to pedestrians and bikes resulting from project traffic mitigation be analyzed. Pedestrian and bike impacts are discussed in Appendix F. Sections 4.6-35 and Impact 4.6-1 in the EIR discuss the proposed fence to block pedestrian access to the rail road tracks, but does not discuss its impacts on pedestrians or bikers. The TIA and EIR both state that the new signal would reduce the walking distance to the future rail station but do not discuss whether walking time will be affected by signal timing. A. Wouldn't a smaller project result in substantially reduced project related traffic and queuing, as well as cumulative traffic'? B. Why wasn't the traffic peer review included in Appendix F? C. How would the use of the actual entrance counts change the results of the LOS analysis? D. Even absent adopted thresholds why aren't queuing impacts considered CEQA Impacts? E. When did Town adopt significant criteria different from CEQA's Appendix G? Under Appendix G congestion(which would include queuing impacts) is also significance criteria, F. Doesn't the footnote on page 4.6-10 of the EIR give Council the ability to use existing traffic as the baseline, if they so choses? G. Would the use of Caltrans significant thresholds result in a change of the significance conclusion for freeway ramps or freeway segments? Would mitigation be required if it did? H. What is the existing delay time for the SR 85 on ramp? What is the Caltrans significance threshold for ramps? I. Did Campbell concur with how town's distributed trip traffic for the traffic study?d J. Will all identified mitigation for cumulative impacts be in place prior to occupancy of the first structure to be built? K. How is the CMP traffic model used by the Town adjusted to account for the Town's constrained roadway pattern? 11. Section 5.5 Alternatives; The EIR does consider an alternative that adequately reduces most of the project impacts: 12 Comment on the Draft EIR Albright Office Park from Lee Quintana (1) The EIR does not address a broad enough range of project alternatives to address key project impacts or the projects inconsistency with its GP Land Use Designation. (2) The objective of an alternative to the project should be: • Consistency with the General Plan Land Use Designation (including height) would: Increased consistency with Goals and Policies, especially Land Use ,and Community Development policies to reduce visual impacts and increase compatibility with Charter Oaks and the Creek Trail Increase landscape buffers between the Creek Trail and Charter Oaks and any building or surface parking, This would reduce visual impacts to these adjacent uses and create more open space on site, which would decrease visual impacts to Charter Oaks and Creek Trail and create room for more landscaped open space in the center of the site . This would also likely reduce the number of trees removed. Reduce trips generated, which would reduce traffic impacts and reduce associated greenhouse and air quality impacts (3) All impacts would be reduced except for Cultural and Hazards which would likely remain approximately the same. (4) Geology (grading) would might have a temporary increased impacts (5) To accomplish the above goals the project would have to: • Meet the height maximum of the General Plan • Move parking underground (50%) • Eliminate the above ground garage parking or substantially reduce its size, height, footprint and mass. i.e reduce surface parking even more (nice to get surface parking down to 25%) • Increase buffer between Charter Oaks and any surface parking, and move any garage to another location on site further from Charter Oaks • Eliminate surface parking (or garage) between the Creek Trail and any building to its west (6) Structures: • Reduce square foot and footprint of office structures • Break up height and mass A. Wouldn't a project designed to meet the above substantially reduce visual, land use compatibility and transportation and air quality/greenhouse gas impacts .? 13 Comment on the Draft EIR Albright Office Park from Lee Quintana 14 March 18, 2013 LOS GATOS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 10 Station Way Los Gatos, CA 95030 PH 408.354.9300 Fax 408.399.1594 www.losgatoschamber.com Board of Directors 2012-2013 Dianne Anderson President Discover Los Gatos Pat Wolfram President Elect El Camino Hospital -Los Gatos Gina Adams Gina Adams Creative Communications Cleve Dayton The Painting Pros Peggy Gibbs Camp BizSmart & BizSmart Global, Inc. Butch Harris PG&E David Hernandez Los Gatos Auto Service, Inc. Rita Marcojohn We've Got Your Back Janice McCabe Janice McCabe Interior Design & Build Patti Rice The Spa -Los Gatos Trevor Schwartz UBS Financial Susan Stevens Elegant Voyages Joseph Sweeney Sweeny, Mason, Wilson & Bosomworth Marie Tallman 9 resident's CIRCLE 0 El Camino Hospital Los Gatos Sweeney, Mason, Wilson & Bosomworth A Peressiom* Lint. Co,pealion HOTEL LOS GATOS ABRACUDA Discover Los Gatos The Spa -Los Gatos Toll House Hotel Los Gatos Auto Service, Inc. Oak Meadow Dental Center Alain Pinel Real Estate Sereno Group Campo di Bocce Los Gatos Business Park, LLC To the Los Gatos Town Council and Planning Commission: The Board of Directors of the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce writes this letter to strongly support approval of the Albright Way project. The project will allow for the building of Class A office space on the north end of our town. We have listened to the discussions, seen the appropriate changes to the project and now it is time for Los Gatos to encourage businesses to view our town as a community that they want to call home. The proposed rebuilding of the Los Gatos Business Park is in an area convenient to freeway access. It has proximity to public transportation, our trails and parks as well as downtown and the Boulevard. Any and all of these conveniences are desirable to a company looking to relocate or start their business. Class A office space is prized and sought after. The current buildings on the property have aged and are not up to the highest quality standards on the rental market. They are not locations where high profile or state of the art companies prefer to locate. According to the Building Owners and Managers Association International ("BOMA"), which represents the owners and managers of all commercial property types including nearly 10 billion square feet of U.S. office space, Class A office buildings are the "most prestigious buildings competing for premier office users with rents above average for the area." BOMA states that Class A facilities have "high quality standard finishes, state of the art systems, exceptional accessibility and a definite market presence." The current office buildings at the Los Gatos Business Park cannot compete with the newer facilities in nearby cities. Los Gatos is thus unattractive to certain kinds of business that make up Silicon Valley's image and reputation. This hurts our tax base and impacts our residents. Los Gatos has benefitted greatly by the presence of Netflix. "Los Gatos based Netflix" is the way any story on the company starts on the news all over the country. Aside from that recognition, Netflix has been a substantial tax generator for the community. With their interest in renting the facilities at the newly built Los Gatos Business Park site Los Gatos can retain this world -known corporation because the space will be Class A. Even if Netflix didn't have an interest in this location, having the availability of such space would be inviting to other corporations needing the space and wanting to be in Los Gatos, a desirable community that is the envy of so many of our neighbors. It is time for Los Gatos to open its doors to the types of businesses that can bring not only prestige but additional tax dollars. It is time to be "business friendly" if we want to maintain the things that make Los Gatos the place to own and operate a business as well as live and own property. If this project is not approved it will be a resounding signal that Los Gatos is not the place to locate if you want to build your "state of the art" company. We urge all residents of the Town to support this valuable project. Respectfully submitted, Board of Directors, Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce cc: John Shenk, Cynthia James, Editor Los Gatos Weekly Times 10 Station Way, Los Gatos, CA 95030 408.354.9300 www.Iosgatoschamber.com This Page intentionally Left Blank