Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Desk Item #7B
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: MAY 20, 2013 MEETING DATE: 05/20/13 ITEM NO: 7 DESK ITEM B TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-12-001; ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-12-078; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-12-003. PROJECT LOCATION: 90-160 ALBRIGHT WAY AND 14600 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD. PROPERTY OWNER: LG BUSINESS PARK, LLC. APPLICANT: JOHN R. SHENK. A. CONSIDER A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE EXISTING SITE WITH UP TO 550,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW OFFICE/R&D BUILDINGS AND APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT THE IMPROVEMENTS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED CM:PD. APNS 424-31-053, 054, 063, 424-32-038, 045, 049, 054, 059, 060, AND 063. B. CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. C. CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. REMARKS: Public Comments After the staff report, Addendum, and Desk Item A were prepared and distributed for this agenda item, additional correspondence was received for the period of 9:01 a.m. Monday, May 20, 2013, through 3:00 p.m. Monday, May 20, 2013 (Attachment 18). o PREPARED BY: Todd Capurso, Acting Director of Community Development Reviewed by: ZJAssistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\2013 Council Reports\May,20.Albiight.DESK ITEM.B.doc Reformatted: 5/30/02 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 90-160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Blvd./PD-12-001/S-12-078/EIR-12-003 May 20, 2013 REMARKS (cont'd): Council Questions Responses to additional questions received from Council are as follows: Property Tax Assumptions: The applicant has provided a Fiscal Impact Analysis (prior Attachment 12) with included estimates of potential tax revenues for the Town of Los Gatos and Los Gatos schools. Per the applicant, the estimates of increased tax revenue for both the Town and the school districts are net of the prior property tax increase resulting from the most recent sale of the property. Note that property tax valuations typically consist of three components: land, buildings, and personal property. Land and buildings cannot increase more than 2% per year unless the property is sold or new construction occurs. The applicant's Fiscal Impact Analysis assumes the growth in property tax to be based on new construction and a 20% factor for personal property (e.g., computers, servers, etc. in commercial buildings). Courtside Height: Courtside is estimated at 38 feet based on a staff report at the time of project approval in the mid 1990's. It is unclear if that is the maximum height or exclusive of mechanical, screening and other items considered at that time. Traffic Improvement Phasing: All major transportation improvements associated with this project will be completed before the first buildings are occupied. The University & Lark improvements have already been completed by the Town and the Winchester & Knowles improvements are underway. The new signalized entrance to the Albright project and the improvements to Winchester & Lark, including traffic signal synchronization and lane improvements, will all be completed with Phase One of the proposed project. ATTACHMENTS: Attachments 1-6 (previously received under separate cover, prior to the staff report): 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Final Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4. Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of April 24, 2013 5. Addendum to the Planning Commission for the meeting of April 24, 2013 6. Desk Item Report to Planning Commission for the meeting of April 24, 2013 PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 90-160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Blvd./PD-12-001/S-12-078/EIR-12-003 May 20, 2013 Attachments 7-15 (previously received with the staff report): 7. Verbatim minutes from the April 24, 2013 Planning Commission hearing (173 pages) 8. Public comments received from 1:00 PM on April 24, 2013, through 12:00 PM on **March 16, 2013 (281 pages) **Please note - the original staff report incorrectly listed "March 16". This should be "May 16". 9. Additional Letter of Justification from the applicant (14 pages) 10. Errata Sheets (2 pages) 11. Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (6 pages), Exhibits A & B received under separate cover 12. Fiscal Impact Analysis from the applicant (28 pages) 13. Additional information from the applicant (38 pages) 14. Comparison table (1 page) 15. Revised plan sheets (3 pages) Attachments previously received with Addendum: 16. Public comments received from 12:01 p.m. on May 16, 2013, through 12:00 p.m. on **March 17, 2013 (19 pages) **Please note — the original staff report incorrectly listed "March 17". This should be "May 16". Attachments previously received with Desk Item. A: 17. Public comments received from 2:01 p.m. May 17, 2013, through 9:00 a.m. May 20, 2013 (43 pages) Attachments received with this Desk Item B: 18. Public comments received from 9:01 a.m. May 20, 2013, through 3:00 p.m. May 20, 2013 (28 pages) TC:JP:ct This Page Intentionally Left Blank May 8, 2013 The Honorable Barbara Spector Town Council Members Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: Approve Albright Way Dear Mayor Spector and Town Council Members: As a resident of Los Gatos since 1984, I wanted to express my support for the Albright Way project. Los Gatos has changed since I first moved here. We have seen areas experience growth in new housing and new retail shops while other parts of our community have seen empty store fronts and vacant car lots. Our community is evolving, and we need to embrace our opportunities. We have a chance to welcome change that will keep our community thriving. The buildings on the Albright Way property have outlived their usefulness in today's market place. Los Gatos has always had an employment center that generated good jobs for our community. We need to continue that tradition by allowing the redevelopment of this property into a modern office campus that will bring world class companies to our community. We all want to see Netflix stay in Town. In order to meet what companies are looking for when they make their facility decisions, we need to have it available. Creating a corporate campus that keeps the building far away from the neighborhood, increases open space by building up not out, and uses sustainable building practices is valuable to Los Gatos. Why would we not want to have the best of the best in our community? This project makes sense and is consistent with Town policies. I would implore you to listen to the professionals who have said that this is right type of development for the property, and approve the project. Los Gatos has always been a unique place to live because we are a full service community. Let's not change what is great about our community. We need this project just like we needed the car dealerships in the 1970's. The majority of residents support Albright in its current configuration. Please vote to approve Albright. Sincerely, Leo Maniglia ATTACHMENT 18 This Page Intentionally Left Blank May 20, 2013 Desk Item for Agenda Item #7 PD-12-001, S-12-078, FEIR From: Lee Quintana 5 Palm Ave. Los Gatos, California 95030 To: Mayor Barbara Spector Vice Mayor Steve Leonardis Council Member Marcia Jensen Council Member Joe Prizinski Council Member Dian McNutt IVA..nf i Q``,y am not a lawyer, but my observations and conclusions are based on my experience as a professional planner (15 years) and as a Planning Commissioner (8 years) The following comments address: I. Consistency with the basic purpose and intent of CEQA II. Evolution of the Vasona Element III. The Gateway Project as Precedent for General Plan Consistency IV. The EIR's interpretation of Consistency with the General Plan V. Conformance with General Plan, Internal Consistency of General Plan and Zoning Consistency with the General Plan VI. Misc. VII. Attachments I. Consistency with the basic purpose and intent of CEQA The EIR may meet the technical and legal requirements of an adequate document, that at the discretion of the council to decide and for is the Courts to concur.1 But given the amount of public comment and repeated letters from Caltrans analysis of freeway segment impacts one might question whether iti meets the intent of CEQA. One might question if it has met the primary purpose of CEQA as an information document that is a 1 The Council also has the discretion to choose alternative evidence to that provided by the EIR, provided it is supported on substantial evidence good faith effort at disclosure. The basic purpose of CEQA and policies the courts have declared implicit to CEQA are summarize in footnote 2.2 The evolution of the Vasona Element, the EIR's interpretation that the projected is consistent with the General Plan, Using the Gateway project as precedence for consistency of the projects with the General Plan, the consistency of the proposed zoning with the General Plan, the internal consistency of the General Plan, and recent changes to the 2020 General Plan are all inter-related.3 II. Evolution of the Vasona Element4 • At no time has allowing exceptions to the General Plan's height restrictions been specifically addressed by the Town. In fact, neither zoning height standards nor General Plan height standards have been changed since the 60's. • The Town has had over 30 years to identify specific exemptions to the General Plan heigh standards for specific area within the Vasona Element. It has not. • The proactive planning regarding the Vasona Light Rail area occurred prior to the adopting of amendments to the 85Nasona element and amendments to the 2 Section 15002(a) list the Basic Purposes of CEQA Section 15003. Policies - Policies the courts have declared implicit in CEQA are summarized below: (b) The EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected (c) Inform the government and the public generally of the environmental impacts of the project (d) The EIR process is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action. (emphasis added) (e) The CEQA process will enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of officials (f) CEQA is intended to be interpreted to afford the greatest possible protection (g) The purpose of CEQA is to compel government to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind. (h) CEQA does not require technical perfection but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at disclosure. 3 This discussion is in part based on information received from a public records request and the limited information I was able to have copied on Friday the 17th. I was informed that the records were Planning and the Clerks Office late Friday morning. 4 A more detailed discussion of the evolution of the Vasona Element can be found in my letter to the Planning Commission dated March 21, 2012. A brief summary of the evolution of the Vasona Element is provided below: 1985: The 1985 element of the General Plan addressed only Route 85 with the median reserved for future mass transit (light rail)? 1994: The 1994 amendments to the Element (now the Route 85 and Vasona Light Rail Element) and the General Plan Land Use Map were the result of a proactive study to identify sites that were vacant or underutilized and intensification of the land use would be appropriate and could take advantage of the opportunities offered by Route 85.8 2000: The focus of the Vasona/Route 85 Element in the 2000 General Plan shifted to the Vasona Light Rail Corridor and housing opportunities in the area. 2020: The element became the Vasona Element and does not include light rail in the median. General Plan Land Use Map in 1994. The study focused on identifying underutilized and vacant land appropriate for intensification that would take advantage of the opportunities offered by 85 with light rail in the median and amending the land use map to intensify use in those areas. III. The Gateway Project (aka Netflix/Aventino) and General Plan Consistency. The Gateway PD many not provide a good precedent for General Plan Consistency.5 • OPR General Plan Guidelines, "The development standards and uses specified for all land use categories in the zoning ordinance - density, lot size, height and the like - must be consistent with the development standards specified in the general Plan's text and diagram of proposed land use". They were not. • Nor was the PD consistent with the Principles and Policy in the Vasona/Route 85 Element that requiring existing zoning to remain in place until the Vasona Light Rail was planned and funded. This criteria set the appropriate timing to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan Land Use. It is therefore, possible that the Gateway PD was not a valid zoning when it was approved • The original EIR for the Gateway Project identified several inconsistencies between the project and the General Plane • These inconsistencies magically disappeared based on determinations made by the General Plan Committee which were used to modify the EIR text. The General Plan Committee determined that: 1. A PD zoning is not a re -zoning! (seems like an emperors new clothes interpretation) This interpretation does not appear to be consistent with the discussion in the OPR General Plan Guidelines. 2. The assumption the rail would be extended to Los Gatos within a year or two and that the proposed PD would give the Los Gatos extension a high priority for funding. Neither assumption was correct. • It is possible when the 2020 General Plan removed that time restriction it created IV. Interpretation of the Projects Consistency with the General Plan • EIR 8.4-7 I agree that since the proposed PD is consistent with the Light Industrial Land Use Designation a General Plan Land Use Amendment is not required. However, based on the General Plan Guidelines, any proposed height that is not consistent with the identified the General Plan intensity standards associated with the Light Industrial Land Use Designation would require a text change to allow the exception. Otherwise it would create an inconsistency within the Element. • Rather than determining consistency of the project with each policy, the consistency analysis determines consistency by balancing policies and goals of the entire general plan. Something that should be left to the Council to do. 5 References to the OPR General Plan Guidelines are from pages 12-13 and 164-166 6 Exhibit M of the Oct , 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report (states Exhibit B at top of Exhibit M • EIR 8.4-7 states "It was also concluded that, because the proposed project would be accessed almost exclusively from nearby freeways and major arterials (and the light rail in the future), the proposed project, despite its height would also be in harmony with nearby residential areas" How is the projects location near near transportation facilities result in harmony with nearby residential areas? • EIR 8.4-4 states "...it was concluded that greater levels of development density and height might be appropriate within the area subject to the VLRE than would be appropriate for other parts of Town." And on EIR 8.4-5 it states that "... the policies within the VLRE may permit structures that might be larger or taller than would be appropriate elsewhere in the Town." (emphasis added) • It is not clear how "might" and "may" equal "consistent with". • The EIR (4.1-19) states that a PD zoning can be used to vary the GP intensity standards established for each General Plan Land Use category is not consistent with the OPR General Plan Guidelines that distinguish between zoning standards and general plan standards and state law (Government Code Section 65860) that requires zoning to be consistent with with all elements and aspects of the General Plan. • EIR 8.4-7 • In fact, this interpretation may actually create an internal inconsistency within the Land Use Element of the General Plan and an inconsistency between the Zoning Designation and Land Use Designations8 • EIR 8.4-4 states that portions of a general plan should be reconciled is reasonably possible but then indicates that there were at least two areas where that was a challenging task. Is that consistent with reasonably possible? • EIR 8.4-4 also states that in general, weight was given to the VLR Element, which is inconsistent with the requirement that all Elements have equal status. • • V. Conformance with General Plan, Internal Consistency of General Plan and Zoning Consistency with General Plan • Government Code Section 65300.5 states "In construing the provisions of this article the Legislature intends that the general plan and elements and parts threreof comprise an integrated internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency." (from OPR Guidelines) • The OPR General Plan Guidelines state "The concept of internal consistency holds that no policy conflicts can exist, either textual or diagramatic between the components of an otherwise complete and adequate general plan. Different policies must be balanced and reconciled within the plan. The internal consistency requirement has five dimensions ..." 1. Equal Status Among Elements 2. Consistency between Elements 3. Consistency within Elements 4. Area Plan Consistency 5. Text and Diagram Consistency • The Guidelines also address Zoning Consistency with a general plan. • The Town is required by state law to maintain consistency between its zoning ordinance and its adopted general Plan • The Guidelines state " every zoning action, such as the adoption of new zoning ordinecne text, or an amendment of a zoning ordinance map, must be consistent with the general plan. A zoning ordinance that is inconsistent with at the time it is enacted is "invalid when passed" • It also states that when a general plan amendment makes the zoning inconsistent, the zoning must change to re-establish consistency "within a reasonable time" (658609c) and then goes on to state "(t)he Planning and Zoning Law does not contemplate that general plans will be amended to conform to zoning ordinances. The tail does not wag the dog" (emphasis added) • Zoning consistency is broken down into three parts in the Guidelines: 1. Uses and standards, 2. Spatial patterns 3. Timing. • Standards: "The development standards and uses specified for all land use categories in the zoning ordinance - density, lot size, height and the like - must be consistent with the development standards specified in the general Plan's text and diagram of proposed land use" • "When rezoning occurs, the newly adopted zoning must be appropriate and consistent with all elements of the general plan. This includes not only the land uses and development standards, " • Both the general plan diagram of proposed land use and the zoning map should set forth similar patterns of land use distribution. • Timing of development is closely linked to the question of consistency of spatial patterns. • Since timing can be a problem, general plans should provide clear guidance for the pace of future development, perhaps by using ......a set of conditions to be met before consistent zoning would be considered timely. VI. Misc: Applicants comparison of Netflix and Abright heights is like comparing apples to oranges and is misleading: • The Netflix PD was approved using the zoning code definisiion of maximum height. (to the top of the mechanical screen). • The Albright PD definition of maximum height includes all roof top equipment, rather than to top of the mechanical screen. • A fairer comparison would be using the Code definition for both. Gateway complex9: Netflix: 1/3 of site (Offices) 4 acres 53' to top of parapet (mansard roof) max. 45' to gutter line 9 Heights taken from the approved Ordinance 2130 approved by Council 4/23/04 and Plans approved by Planning Commission 4/20/04 60' to tallest tower of Aventino 2/3's of site (Apartments) 8 acres 41' max 3 story height (range between 36' -41') 51'6" Highest tower (range between 46 `- 51'6") Albright PD: All 21+ acres: 63'5" to top of roof screen max. 65' to top of elevator tower The comparison is also misleading because • Gateway complex the taller office structure is situated on only 1/3 of the site, the apartments, which occupy 2/3rds of the site are considerably shorter. • The Albright PD and A&S propose taller structures for the entire 21 acre site, which will result in an entirely different intensity of development. Gateway PD and A&S History: • The Gateway PD and A&S were originally approved in 2002 and was amended twice in 2004.The second amendment was submitted shortly after the first requesting an increase in the approved maximum height of 49'. Two addendum to the EIR were prepared. In addition architectural changes were approved by the DRC. • Will this also be the history of Albright? Netflix has already stated on the record at the April 24th Planning Commission hearing that they will likely ask to amend the A&S in the future to provide a bridge between buildings. VII. Attachments: A. Page 5 of the Applicants Letter of Justification for the 2004 Amendment to the Gateway Project: Item #10 Height, Mass, Scale and Density B. Exhibit M of the October 22, 2002 Planning Commission Agenda Item 2 (Titled Exhibit B General Plan Analysis) Los Gatos Gateway November 13, 2003 Page 5 A-Ham f'1.1J/. pilasters, trellis, paving materials, landscaping and tree pattern linking the residential and office. We also adjusted the grading between the two uses, relocated the office garage entry and removed a portion of the residential garage to create a better flow and landscape area between the residential and office buildings. This drive isle provides parking that will be shared by both uses - encouraging interaction and activity. The improved site pedestrian circulation will also enhance the life experience of both employees and residents. Architecture: Item #10: Height, Mass, Scale, & Density Response: The Town Council, in approving the project, established the appropriate level of density and intensity of this site. The modified project has less total square footage and represents a substantial decrease in the intensity of the site. The approved project has a maximum height of 49.5 feet for the office and 41 feet for the residential. The modified project represents a substantial reduction in height across project site ranging from 5-10 feet. The buildings along the Los Gatos Creek trail are about 35 feet high, and their overall profile is lower since the apartment building in the approved project was sitting on a garage structure and the buildings in the modified project will be on -grade. Through the modified project, we have lowered building height along the creek trail by4-8 feet. The predominant height of the residential portion is only 35.5 feet with peaks at 41 feet. In addition, the modified project represents a 20% reduction in overall building volume (mass and scale), an 18% reduction in site population, a 10% reduction in average daily traffic trips; and less linear mass than the approved project. In response to Planning Commission comments, we have eliminated 5 units from the project and reconfigured unit locations. We eliminated the building mass (stories of building) at key view sheds including the portion of the townhomes most visible from the creek trail, the apartments most visible from the creek trail, the leasing office, and the middle of the apartment facade facing the office buildings. In addition, 36% of the residential buildings' perimeter is patios and balconies. Some of the balconies can be open or include trellises to create the visual appearance of a second story element. We recommend that others be covered to maintain variety. We are proposing that these elements be used to create two story appearances where appropriate and to rprovide alternatives for prospective residents. We also added one story elements in key locations to provide variety in scale and interest to the project. The attached diagram illustrates one and two story elements in the project. In addition, we removed garage structure at the southern edge of the property to allow additional berming and landscaping to occur at this most visible location. We also propose "Juliet balconies" be incorporated at the third floor in this area to further break up the building facade. We plan to continue to work with staff to refine and sculpt the architecture and details during the DRC process. i*Cz CA-) 01 VI EXHIBIT B GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS 1. In general, in light of the General Plan Advisory Committee decision on December 13, 2000, that the project was as proposed is consistent with the existing General Plan, we suggest that the format of the General Plan consistency section be revised, Rather than a "consistency" determination being made with respect to each individual principal, policy, goal, or strategy, it would be more appropriate to simply have an analysis of each such principal, etc., with an over-all consistency finding than being made at the conclusion of the analysis. In that light, the heading of the tables beginning on Page 4.1-3, 4.1-4, and 4.1-5,'would not be "Project Consistency" but rather would be "Project Analysis." Under the discussion of each particular principal, etc., the words "inconsistent" or "consistent". would not be used. This same format should be used in other sections of the document in which General Plan policies are analyzed. 2. Page 4.1-3. With respect to the policies listed as General Plan policies on page 4.1-3 and page 4.1-4, I would suggest that both the project and the R&D+Housing Alternative should be found to be consistent, for several reasons. The first is that this is not really a commercial area or a commercial neighborhood. Accordingly, the policy .on maintaining a variety of commercial uses is not really appropriate, since there are none at the present time, as noted in the existing Project Analysis. Furthermore, the policy on encouraging mixed use.is not violated by a single use project. The policy does not require that all projects must be mixed use, or else any single use project would be deemed to be inconsistent with .the General P1an in a commercial area, which is not the way Los Gatos has interpreted its General Plan in. the past. Thus, an overall consistency finding could read as follows: "Both the project and the R&D+Housing Alternative are consistent with the over-all intent of these policies. The project site is not currently a commercial area. The project proposes R&D uses which are related to office uses and do contain a mix of actual interior uses within a development. It is speculative to conclude that the project would result in a . loss of future neighborhood commercial uses, since there are no commercial development proposals for this site, nor are any likely given the location and the surrounding land uses. The Town has encouraged the development of mixed uses on this site, and the R&D+Housing Alternative is in response to that encouragement, as well as an attempt to support the future light rail connection." 3. Page 4.1-4, Policy Table. The heading for this table should actually refer to "Principles" and not "Policies," as the reference is to the "guiding principles" contained in Page V-2 of the General Plan. In the analysis of the third principle, the project is stated to be "inconsistent." As discussed above, this adjective should be dropped. Instead, we suggest, "This principal applies only to residential development, not to an R&D development such as the project." 4. Page 4.1-5, Table on Vasona Light Rail/Route 85 Element Policies. In the discussion on page 4.1-5 of V.G. 2.2 and V.G. 2.3, the statement should be omitted that the project is inconsistent. The fact that there is a goal to "encourage" a certain kind of development V\V1515956.1 01-050800809001 Exhibit M does not automatically make some other kind of development inconsistent with that goal. The same is true with respect to the analysis of VP 3.4 on Page 4.1-6. 5. At the end of the table on the Vasona Lia'nt Rail Policies on page 4,1-7, we suggest the over-all consistency finding could read something like the following: This project is fully in confoLluance with the goals and policies of supporting light rail transit on the Vasona line and the Route 85 median. The basic principle of light rail is that either high density housing or an employment center should be placed adjacent to light rail stations. This project proposes, instead, to provide primarily a place of employment, which is fully consistent with VTA principles and goals, and with the Town's goal and policy of supporting the Vasona light rail line. Thus, the existence of this project should enhance the attractiveness to the VTA of locating a light rail station at Vasona Junction. This site is ideally suited for the uses allowed in the CM Zoning District. It is at the extreme edge of Los Gatos, sandwiched between a busy commercial street (Winchester Boulevard), the Union Pacific railroad tracks, and Highway 17, with no adjacent residential uses. The stepped, multi -story project takes its design from many existing Los Gatos Spanish/Moorish architectural buildings consisting of sloped clay tile ;roofs, earth -tone stucco walls, and groundfloor pedestrian arcades, in keeping with the small town characfer of Los Gatos: New natural landscaping will be blended with existing, vegetation ' to further emphasize the natural character of the project. Trellises, vines, and extensive landscaping complement the historical architecture. As outlined above, the project will be sensitively designed and extensively landscaped to complement the character of Los Gatos. The main buildings are clustered around a courtyard. Located in the center of the courtyard is a one-story employee recreation and cafe building, This .building allows those on site to dine and exercise, thereby reducing the potential for peak -hour traffic impacts on Los Gatos streets. In addition, the project will have direct access to the Vasona light rail station that will be right at its doorstep. Furthermore, the Los Gatos Creek trail is immediately behind the project, and the project will have direct access to the trail. This will allow commute alternatives for those with access to the creek tail near their homes, as well as allowing exercise opportunities for employees and visitors to the project. The present project does not propose housing. However, since planning and funding for the Vasona Light Rail are speculative, the housing potentially contemplated by the new General Plan could be many years in the future. As such, housing at this location can not be necessary in order to meet the City's needs for housing within the reasonable implementation lifetime of the General Plan. Accordingly, the project's proposed CM zoning uses are completely consistent with the desire for an employment center WLF1515956.1 01.050800809,001 adjacent to a light rail station, is consistent with this policy. The concept of providing services to residents of Los Gatos is enhanced by the fact that employment opportunities will be created for Los Gatos residents to enable them to work closer to where they live, thus reducing overall traffic congestion. In addition, of the area of Vasona Junction planned for residential, one-half is already devoted to new light industrial uses to the east of this site in the South Bay office park. Only half of the project site is planned residential (the half currently occupied by. the medical manufacturing building), while the old A-Z Nursery site is phnned for commercial uses. Thus, there was and is no realistic prospect that the part.. of Vasona ..Junction. shown in. the _General Plan for residential actually will be developed for high density residential uses within the lifetime of the new General Plan, We must assume, therefore, that this policy contemplates a speculative use beyond the realistic lifetime of the General Plan. Accordingly, approving the proposed project at this time is not inconsistent with this policy. Although a separate housing development would be impractical and probably inappropriate on .this property, the R&D+Housing Alternative, which proposes housing units as an adjunct to the R&D project would fully support the desire to provide additional housing in Los Gatos. Given the location of this property in a fundamentally non-residential area, such, a mixed use as proposed is probably the only way that such housing realistically .could be provided: 1ALF1515956.1 01-050800809001 May 20, 2013 To: Los Gatos Town Council Subject: Albright Way Project Dear Mayor Spector, Vice Mayor Leonardis, Council Member Jensen, Council Member McNutt, and Council Member Pirzynski, We are a group of Los Gatos homeowners who request the Town Council to reject the Albright Way project. We have heard some false choices that are being presented in favor of the project: 1) That if the project is not allowed to exceed the height limits the schools will lose out on >$1M extra annual funds. Truth - the project can stay within the height limits and deliver the same extra school funding. Will the developer do it? You bet, it is in their financial interest to improve Albright Way. Then the question becomes can the infrastructure support the increased traffic from the development? 2) That NetFlix may not stay in Town if we don't give them what they want. Truth: maybe — if they prefer a skyscraper somewhere else. But there are plenty of companies that would move to 2 and 3 story class A space in LG. When one of us was last looking for space for our hi -tech firm Los Gatos was more $/sf and had less vacancy than other nearby cities — our broker(a top pro at CBRE) said that is how the LG commercial market has been for his entire career. So the lack of 4+ story buildings in LG has not hurt the demand. 3) Loosing NetFlix will hurt LG. Truth: NetFlix no longer generates the large sales tax $, It is the property tax on the new buildings (whether NetFlix is there or not) that will generate the $ for the public use. The Los Gatos "brand" has been top tier for decades and the presence of any particular high tech firm has never been a major factor. Now let's talk fairness for the residents in the affected area that relied on the rules to understand they wouldn't have neighboring buildings that far exceed the height limits. None of us live in that neighborhood but we should have concern for those folks. How would the advocates for the extra tax revenue react if their neighbors planned to build well above height limits and then argued the incremental tax revenue justified their project? It is just not fair! We could go on but the point is the Town should not establish precedent for significant height increases that will be the beginning of the end of our "town". Please reject the application and send it back to the drawing board! Sincerely, Debbie Acosta Anokh Bhuller Jasbir Bhuller Kullar Bhuller Bill Kraus Angie Steen From: Erwin Ordonez Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:46 AM To: Greg Larson; Todd Capurso; Sandy Baily; Joel Paulson Cc: Judith Propp Subject: FW: Presentation Attached is a draft presentation Jack Van Nada sent me this morning after he called me to verify the amount of former RDA funding that is going to the local schools. Mayor Spector referred him to me directly. Erwin Ordonez, AICP, EDFP Senior Planner Town of Los Gatos From: Erwin Ordon"ez Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:39 AM To: 'Jak VanNada' Subject: RE: Presentation Mr. Van Nada, In response to your telephone inquiry this morning (referred from Mayor Spector) and your follow-up e-mail, I am attaching two letters from the Town which estimate the amount of former RDA funding that the locals schools will receive from the two recent Successor Agency payments that have been provided to the County of Santa Clara. Please note that the funding is one-time funding. Erwin Ordoiiez, AICP, EDFP Senior Planner Town of Los Gatos From: Jak VanNada [mailto:jvannada©gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:14 AM To: Erwin Ordonez Subject: Presentation Erwin, Thank you for your time this morning. I have attached my presentation for tonight's Council meeting. Let me know if you see anything bizarre. Thanks, Jak Van Nada w W 0 Mir a) "C3 -0 ... 2 .6.) rirs) a) 4.4 u 4.) p 73:8. to . E tro FT E 2 ..c3 0 (I) . (11) siml = fe IV II:.® c L- 461 1 1 UM 0 It I CT) "OW E E 2 ..c u) co „.„,_ agik 1.._ .1n fa .. LI atta ...4-0 c (1) rti c492 tj c,Si 4di c a) Elii Eta Bid > w no ct) ®a) E ® g go 43 0 CO 1,- W 0. -Et cii) %., TE) id. .1:°� ® i at) g mr. .c. Eci til CD RI Ts t, wo cco a ›.1., ria) _ > .c 0 44 ,a., 0 ra (1) = °iii. c „fa m cri �"..., w a) ..c ..Ian �c 9 o c 4., = a) as c W ma IR ® "El t�4.3 fa 5 r2 rici. Ec,,, E 2 1.... v gela u oo rek a) L. c Q) o ..la $ Q) L = I. C ui fa C1) 42= cu 04 0 >. a) "" w r4 ..) 4C, E a) w E=1 > a) o ut) a) 1:27,0 -014a- 2.421:a ai 12 to 0) ion = w" w E ti El E ro 4,41tEla12.r%2 I 1 1 I o Fam Rs co co fNi wo ca m(13 oC � 6, tins (lj . 01 UJ a..(a) Nei CO W O. M C 0 Q) �1 MI ® fa V) U tom V N C 0 W i 0 ® li 0' IN E 8 0 `13 V) o� C E cTo ® tin ° HMI L9 E s z 0 W .C) 0 E 1. da °) ® i� ® • = W ea., Li. .„Ls1 .1:9 110 IC vw C (1°) V) ri) 0 C W •E L w FA rim)® sw E ® W W 4) I,: 4.1 L e '0 • 'V • • • • • fQ • O✓ ▪ • L/2 immEV co a) Foam Schools Recurring Revenues"" CO CD r b3 $ 2,842,155 4,3 A C. v 1 to NCO. la N V> b3 CO N 03 v. N to $ 246,652 44) N fA $ 700,000 NA N Cep. 10 to Schools Total Revenues CO CO Kl• N r tH u) CO N La er to CK N. r t9 to CO O N W' to M CO .4. et 69 $ 15,729 CD CO r er to $ 449,092 CO CO NCO i N 99 0 P+ 49® VD 0 Ca ea CV V> r r 0) K3 cS r C> Rates in Excess c 0) Y. 0 CD CD N 63 N tY) CO to CD 2r P.. b>. 0 M 4% V> C CO r CO to CO C7 CY b> N. V' V� 10 6A. 0 M V� 47, 63 CD W . 0i '0 *A 01 N 0) b3 V' 0) 0) N r to School Revenue 0 `' C ep P. 47 4) d CO V3 M CQ CJ 4M9 r N V>69 N N. et N 0 eY 0) t�D r to r CO Cr) r CA b 1CJ 47 b>tWp N. 49 r, h r. N 07 Pti f�D R. ti,W N LC)M co W W. N O, N b1 CO 0) to. O CI 0) to Schools - Dev. W LL CO ti r b> 40Uy CO M r" V> d Z OO1 0 N V> et N~ r V> co V3 C0 00'1 r V> W N N V> C CCO to CLCO C1 r t9 100 N. CO C`i V> Property Tax C9 3. CO O1 4-Cfl 49 0 2 C M 99 CD 8 CO V> tC}3 433 CO .el. tH U 8 ti V' V! (0 r r V> CD 09 r tt Vi $ 418,000 8 I V' V3 Ca 0 CO R9 CO d' r (0 0) V> Net Property Assessment CD CO R. !p 10 0CD OD 0) 4-Co3 69 0 CO ® 4i It) M 4A $ 6,0o0,000' CD C) CJ 3 CS er V> $ 47,600,000 C ID 47 N CO.r 'm t9 0 CS CS COO 1: a! to $ 41,800,000 O 0 O O US V' 63 0) C7 4 M to CO CO O7 N CD 01 63 Upcoming Projects from 2013 to 2018 Albright (350K improvements only) (North 40 (property & improvements) Bluebird Lane (2 homes left) Swanson Ford (Improvments only) Sisters of the Holy Name: (17 homes - it 14251 WnchesterBlvd (medical) 'Laurel Mews (22 homes) Capri (est 38, 1850 living units) Palo Alto Medical CVS retail,bank, med (improvements only) Redevelopment Fees increased Property Taxes (projected by LGUSD @ 3%, LGSUHSD @ 4% Conclusion 0 0 0 •us ftri Qj 0 (1, 4.) O i ,8i � v a v v That's all new money If; E fa 41 •Z s v t � s s U � N (D .6/ o .� CZ Lri Ch 4 v z Izu a) TOWN OF Los GATOS November 9, 2012 Irene Lui, Controller / Treasurer Controller -Treasurer Department 70 W. Hedding Street, East Wing, 2nd Floor San Jose, CA 95110 I rene.l.iai;'a;tlnscc,cw.org Re: DOF Approved LMiHF Balance Transfer Dear Ms. Lui, CIVIC: CENTER 110 E. MAIN SrRE r P.O. Box 697 Los Gyros, CA 95031 On November 7, 2012 the Town of Los Gatos received the approval notice from the California State Department of Finance confirming the available balance for distribution to the affected taxing entities is $6,431,339. Pursuant to HSC section 34179,6(f) we are required to transmit these monies, plus interest, to the County auditor -controller within tive working days. Please be on notice that we have set-up the wire transfer and your Office will be receiving $6,465,271.16 (which includes interest through 11/13/12), it is our understanding that this amount will be distributed to the taxing entities per the chart below and within five working days of receipt. TRANSFER FROM TOWN Affordable Housing Fund Balances $ 6,431,339 Accrued Interest from 3/8/11 Thru 11/13/12 $ 33,932 TOTAL TRANSFER FROM TOWN $ 6,465,271 Estimated Taxing Agency Share Jurisdiction Post-ERAF IAF Los Gatos Union Elementary 23.22% $ 1,500,920 Los Gatos -Saratoga High 17.40% $ 1,124,933 Central Fire Protection District 13.18% $ 852,388 Santa Clara County 11.78% $ 761,734 ERAF 11.77% $ 760,916 Los Gatos 9.30% $ 601,500 West Valley -Mission Community College 7.28% $ 470,685 County School Service 2.92% $ 188,809 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1.35% $ 87,392 Santa Clara Valley Water District Central Zone 0.96% $ 61,931 Santa Clara County Importation Water-Misc. District 0.42% $ 27,413 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 0.16% $ 10,383 Santa Clara Valley Water District 0.14% $ 9,203 Santa Clara Valley Water District West Zone 4 0.11% $ 7,066 Total 100.00% $ 6,465,271 Sincerely, ennifer Callway Finance & Budget Manager Town of Los Gatos rNcoRPoRATEL AUGUST 10, 1887 TOWN OF Los GATOS Civic Cr NTER 110 E. `'LAIN STRrET P.O. Box 697 Los GA1os, CA 95031 Irene Lui, Controller / Treasurer Controller -Treasurer Department 70 W. Hedding Street, East Wing, 2nd Floor San Jose, CA 95110 Irenc.l.ui n_sc'c; ovAirg Re: DOF Approved Other Funds and Accounts Balance Transfer Dear Ms. Ltri: On April 26, 2013 the Town of Los Gatos received the notice of determination for the "Other Funds and Accounts Due Diligence Review" from the California State Department of Finance confirming the available balance for distribution to the affected taxing entities is $6,726,1.46. Pursuant to HSC section 34179,6(f) we are required to transmit these monies, plus interest, to the County auditor -controller within five working days. Please note, while the Town is required to transfer these monies to you and is thereby doing so to comply with HSC section 34179.6(f) these monies are being paid under protest, and the Town of Los Gatos reserves the right to dispute payment/transfer of these funds at a later time. Therefore, please be advised that Town has set-up the wire transfer and your Office will be receiving $6,782,046 (which includes interest through May 2, 2013). It is our understanding that this amount will be distributed to the taxing entities per the chart below and within five working days of receipt. TRANSFER FROM TOWN Other Funds and Accounts Balance $ 6,726,146 Accrued Interest from 1/19/11 Thru 5/2/13 $ 55,900 TOTAL TRANSFER FROM TOWN $ 6,782,046 Estimated Taxing Agency Jurisdiction Long Name Post-ERAF IAF Share Los Gatos Union Elementary Los 23.22% $ 1,574,460 Gatos -Saratoga High Central 17.40% $ 1,180,051 Fire Protection District 13.18% $ 894,152 Santa Clara County ERAF 11.78% $ 799,056 Los Gatos 11.77% $ 798,198 West 9.30% $ 630,972 Valley -Mission Community College County 7.28% $ 493,746 School Service Midpeninsula 2.92% $ 198,060 Regional Open Space District Santa 1.35% $ 91,674 Clara Valley Water District Central Zone Santa 0.96% $ 64,965 Clara County Importation Water-Misc District Bay 0.42% $ 28,756 Area Air Quality Management District Santa 0.16% $ 10,892 Clara Valley Water District Santa 0.14% $ 9,653 Clara Valley Water District West Zone 4 Total 0.11% $ 7,412 100.00% $ 6,782,046 Sincerely, Jennifer Callaway Finance & Budget Manager Town of Los Gatos INCORPORATED AtiGusT 10, 1887 From: William Kraus [mailto:billkraus©att,net] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:47 PM To: Council Subject: Albright Way Project Please see the attached letter from several homeowners re. the Albright Way Project. Thank you, Bill Kraus From: Ronee Nassi[mailto:ronee©losgatoschamber.com] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:57 PM To: Council Subject: Business Journal Articles re: Albright Way Importance: High Good afternoon, Attached are 2 articles that appeared in the May 17 edition of the Silicon Valley Business Journal. Please take a moment to read them as they pertain to the Albright Way Class A Office Space project on tonight's Council agenda. Thank you, The Board of the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce Ronee Nassi Executive Director Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce 10 Station Way, Los Gatos 95030 408.395.5951 direct 408.354.9300 main 408.399.1594 fax www.losgatoscham ber. com 5111/40 SILICON VALLEY BUSINESS JOURNAL COMMENTARY Los Gatos, don't lose Netflix he fate ofNetilix's expansion Iles in the hands of the Los Gatos Town Council. On Monday night, Netlllx Inc. will know if construction era new- 550,O00-square-foot campus moves ahead or falls by the wayside. Just getting to this point has been a steep climb. The developer, John Shenk, has reworked the plaits multiple times to appease the town. It experienced starts and stops. a iaw,Suit and delays that now has the project running out of time. After three years, Net Ili x is bursting at the seams In its current facilities. if the council says no, N etilix will most certainly look north to friendlier cities like San lose and Santa Clara a• cities that are chomping at the bit to put out the 4veteonie coat far the streaming media giant. 11' Los Gatos kills the project, the pitches will begin In Ybu can reach Print Editor ;'1orijt Afilo at rnn ilo a' bizjottrnals.coni. earnest and most likely include concessions to accommodate Net flix's growth needs. If that's how 1t plays ottt. Los Gatos will be the ultimate loser. The town will lose 52 million In annual sales taxes. Netfix's sales taxes snake up roughly 6 percent of general I'unt.i revenue. That's a Itat of cash to throw away. it also will lose developer fees originally pegged at $1.6 rtallllon -„ that would be applied toward conirnunity benefits, transportation improvements and school district needs. if l.os Gatos nixes l' ettlix, it will also send a crushing Message to big business; Not In our town, thank you very much, We like things Just the. tis;iy they are. 'ihe logic ngainst the project isn't there. Yes, it's big, on 21 acres. But those acres are on the fringe of the town, right next to Highway vay 85. If approved; It would be a terrific gateway into Los Gatos, instead of the bundle of aging buildings that currently stands there. Many In the town argue It would impact traffic and create congestion. But the most recent proposal took out the residential cotnponent and reduced building heights, two big rubs for Sarare residents. Is an anti -business climate really What Los Gatos wants to he known for? Hew about doing somet hini very unlike Los Gatos -- take a pro - business position and give Netillx the green light. cc z IN1 (71 kto z 0 471 ' "4 41. P. .:1 " • .6 L4 a_,„,,, 1s4 gc 0 M • 5 F 5 1 4 8 M a .g‘ n -1 .:.; .... , , . ...., ,r, vE.00'.0..,,-,,-,.s-1.4= 5 9 ''' a" -- - ' .) 'll..9,orarr :i5°-•'''.1j*- ' 7 To Id lot '.11 0 .4., '' •--' ',;,4 a 0 — . .0 .44 0 C.,' 4 -. C"4 it; V ' = 1/4.) 0 ..• V c4-4 1,V) CI .,„ vl --4 - • -. 4- ,p .;!.- a. 0 p, 1...,4 tri „ .„, 4 0 tr, „,a c " '''' lj .° -.- '" —.6 : 0' as. ....'4„1 ''0'. •P 111 a > 2 :A a ,, 4 a -a :--- .•i —„ i >, = 0 -. *-` a — ..-z (., c., t j 5 ol ....c v.e., •..b. ... g ...r, ..„ :,.; , '-'s,1 :.., L„.. ,... ,... a... .,‘ 2 , ta 4 FF. 41 i., 8 ', 0 " 7) T., -6 ' 4- 64 F% to -- tw "--' 1:3 sj L. ....i 3o --c6 „.„, .71 ,,4., ...,, ...,, 4. v 4.. ...En , .: .L...: ... f! 4r,i e'3 a v 6 t ' 5 .,. v ,.... - c•— ‘" ••,-;:` — — -; b.i.r8 0-vi.4 Pg.90.---t- - c ,..„ d rL 6. „1 t% 0 ,,.. ...,.... ,... " — --' et - ..- .E 3,, ,B „II 4.,J .. t-,-.; z c,,, 4,) 4 — — a = ...0 A •LE vl z ,.. — ..:...4.:d: a .,,a . ,-." a ° 0 II -rir,.....'1` a ,-.41 ±- 1) . •=5 :.' 7. 0 E . . . ''' . -. :: .., 4,__!.,, ..., v .... , ...e . 4 i 0 :6; n - .„.-,•v P ... ,,le, 7 ..• : 1 T; "c Rr; g8a. .... i... 1 4.1 U. p-1 t .ro ...2! .?-1 .71 I i ' )n .-4,', • ..„, ,..., -... v.,* • .e.4 g i 0.1 ..... 2 E.:5 irif ... ° e r4 a .4 ,.,I , ,.,, oil = e I 2 a = *6 ra' `:-:.1 .4 e ii .t 1... ,..., g t, I tt :., rg L). Lel *a C ''',..,laig.,---'.g--=---,,s9Rgd'te.774,,...etzg., 2 m .9., n 7-- 7.-. 17,'..! ' E. :1:., 8,7Rr--tii75*.iitj rra 6' = .. . t - . 7.3 -a a ... c 7 8 1--- ...-- Ei84a';•2E. bL1-E" ° — — = c ' 72 p o 0 . '0 6, • „ et, .74 , 0 +A •-• q= r•-• v 'r.-S •-.4 C.) • ;!t — td ." • Y, E 8 e, 0' 4 n — SlF.. t7) gu to"' 0-4 " r0r1 '6 " A- 7 LI 51. 8 8 .g o a e 2 -3• 11 a A 74 5' = From: Jo Ann Brenning[mailto:michelangelosgriefCaatt.net] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:04 PM To: Council Cc: J0 Subject: THE'ALBRIGHT ADJACENT' PROPERTY BUILDING PLAN DEAR MR. MAYOR & ASSOCIATED TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS; AS A CHARTERS OAKS RESIDENT, I FEEL RESPONSIBLE TO LET YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS PROPOSED PLAN TO "OUR TOWN".THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ALONE, I.E. OVERCROWDING, VEHICLE POLUTION, AND THE OVERWHELMING BUILDING HEIGHTS THAT WILL BLOCK OUT THE GORGEOUS LANDSCAPING: WHICH IS THE ONE VERY IMPORTANT REASON MANY OF US CHOSE TO LIVE HERE! LARK AVE.WILL BECOME A MALL PARKING LOT! I AM THE POSTER CHILD WHOSE CAR WAS COMPLETELY DESTROYED TRYING TO TURN LEFT FROM CHARTER OAKS AV. ONTO LARK LAST YEAR AS OUR MAYOR WILL RECALL, HE HIMSELF CALLED THAT NTERSECTION "THE WORST IN LOS GATOS! I ALSO FEAR THAT LARK AVE. BEING THE ONLY ENTRANCE/EXITS FOR OUR WHOLE COMMUNITY, PUTS US ALL IN A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION IN CASE OF EMERGENCIES!!! THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO MY CONCERNS, JO ANN BRENNNG Joel Paulson From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Town Council, Mitzi <mitziand@aol,com> Monday, May 20, 2013 1:53 PM Joel Paulson Albright project I'm writing to ask you to reject the Albright project as it is proposed. The town has done a good job of maintaining its character and small town feel. Now is not the time to depart from this fine accomplishment. We need to stick to our guidelines as created in the General plan for height limits. We should not bend for a developer. He knows the rules and if his project isn't feasible financially for him then too bad. The residents have to live with any bad decisions for a lifetime. Too many "small" exceptions and we start to look like Sunnyvale and Mountain View. Please make the developer follow the guidelines of our special town. Sincerely, Mitzi Anderson Wysocki Foster Road, Los Gatos Sent from my iPhone 1 From: Pat Romano[mailto:pasquale.romano@chargepoint.com] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:42 PM To: Council Subject: Letter to Town Council re: Albright Way Project Importance: High Los Gatos Town Council, I am both a small business owner in the town of Los Gatos (co-owner of Centonove) as well as CEO of a venture backed electric vehicle charging infrastructure company that is headquartered near the proposed Netflix site. On the matter of Netflix proposal to build a building that exceeds current height restriction, I suggest the council support Netflix' endeavors. I make this suggestion from two perspectives. First, as a local small business owner, we need businesses like Netflix to thrive in the area and not seek alternatives elsewhere as they grow. Their employees are customers of all the businesses in the town and the economic impact of Netflix growing elsewhere means we are sending their employees business elsewhere. These employees buoy the weekday patronage of businesses in the town providing a convenient balance to the natural traffic that occurs on weekends. Second, Los Gatos needs to develop more class A office space. In my CEO role at ChargePoint, I would consider locating in Los Gatos if suitable office space existed. We are currently located in Campbell but on the Los Gatos border. Within a year, we will likely be considering a move further north on the peninsula even though we would rather stay near where we are. There simply is not enough space to support mid -sized companies in the local area. As businesses grow, so do their revenues and associated tax payments. The environment here encourages businesses to leave, just as they enter a phase where they start to generate significant business. The issue with Netflix is not just an issue with them. It points to a need to reconsider development policy for that area of Los Gatos that could be home to more businesses than currently reside there. Thank you for your attention to the matter. Sincerely, Pat Romano This Page Intentionally Left Blank