Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Desk Item D
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: June 3, 2013 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 06/03/13 ITEM NO: I 1 DESK ITEM D 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. Continued from May 20, 2013, Bern 7 REMARKS: On May 20, 2013, the Town Council held a public hearing on this item. However, the public input portion for this item was not completed and the agenda item was continued to June 3, 2013. Tom® PREPARED BY: Todd Capurso, Acting Director of Community Development Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance N:\DEV\TC REPORTS\2013\lone 3 Albright DESK D.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-I2-003 June 3, 2013 Public Comments After the staff report, Addendum, Desk Item A, Desk Item B, Addendum 2, Addendum 3, and Desk Item C were prepared and distributed, additional correspondence was received for the period from 9:31 a.m. Monday, June 3, 2013, through 3:00 p.m. Monday, June 3, 2013 (Attachment 25). Council questions Staff has received two more questions. The following are the questions received with staff responses in italics: How do PD's operate in the context of the General Plan? The General Plan allows the Town to target development in Los Gatos to achieve a more specific outcome by designating specific overlay zones and special planning areas. PD's are one type of overlay zone permitted in the General Plan. 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 the General Plan are consistent" (General Plan 2020 Page LU-16) What is the intent of PD's as specified in the Town Code? The intent ofPD's in the Town Code reads as follows in Section 29.80.080: "The purpose of the PD or planned development overlay zone is to provide for alternative uses and developments more consistent with site characteristics than are allowed in other zones, and so create an optimum quantity and use of open space and encourage good design. The PD zone permits establishment of a single use or the integration of several uses not ordinarily possible only if use and development is in compliance with a complete development plan showing relationships of the use or uses to each other, to the district as a whole, and to surrounding areas." The Town Code also addresses the allowance to set alternative regulations than those in the underlying zone in Section 29.80.085 which reads as follows: "A lot zoned PD or planned development overlay may be used either in the manner provided in the PD zone or the manner provided in the underlying zone but not both; the two (2) zones are complete alternatives. All of the regulations of the zone used apply, and none of the regulations of the other zone, except in the situation where a PD zone is used and the PD ordinance expressly incorporates provisions of the underlying zone. However, once land is used in the manner provided in one (1) of the zones an election shall not then be made to use the land in the manner provided in the other zone unless the land is made to conform in all respects to the rules of the other zone. In this respect no nonconforming use privilege exists." PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 90-160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Blvd./PD-12-001/S-12-078/EIR-12-003 June 3, 2013 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 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 previously received with 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) PAGE4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 90-160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Blvd./PD-12-001/S-12-078/EIR-12-003 June 3, 2013 Attachments previously received with Addendum 2 19. Public comments received from 3:01 p.m. May 20, 2013, through 12:00 p.m. May 30, 2013 (101 pages) Attachments previously received with Addendum 3 20. Public comments received from 12:01 p.m. May 30, 2013, through 4:30 p.m. May 31, 2013 21. Letter dated May 30 from the Town's traffic consultant TJKM (2 pages) Attachments previously received with Desk Item C 22. Public comments received from 4:31 p.m. May 31, 2013, through 9:30 a.m. June 3, 2013 23. Memorandum from the applicant regarding feasibility considerations (2 pages) 24. Additional information from the applicant (7 pages) Attachments received with this Desk Item D 25. Public comments received from 9:31 a.m. June 3, 2013, through 3:00 p.m. June 3, 2013 TC:JP:ct From: Emily Collier[mailto:emilye.collierCayahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:14 AM To: Council Subject: I SUPPORT NETFLIX IN LOS GATOS!!! I support Netflix being in Los Gatos 100%! ! They have played a major part in our community for years. We need the revenue that their company brings to the City of Los Gatos. Thank you, Emily Collier ATTACHMENT 2 5 Joel Paulson From: Ronee Nassi <ronee@losgatoschamber.com> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:40 AM To: Council; Joel Paulson; Greg Larson Cc: 'Butch Harris'; 'Cleve Dayton'; David Hernandez-LG Auto Service; 'Dianne Anderson'; Gina Adams; 'Janice McCabe'; Joseph M Sweeney; Marie Tallman; TallmanTH@aol.com; Pat Wolfram; Patti Rice; Peggy Gibbs; Rita Marcojohn; Susan Stevens; Trevor Schwartz Subject: Additional commentary regarding Albright Way and tonight's Council meeting Attachments: Editorial and Commentary 6-3-2013.pdf Good morning. On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce please find the editorial from today's Mercury News and the May 24th commentary from the Business Journal as they pertain to the Albright Way Class A Office Space project. We hope that you will take a moment to read them as you prepare for tonight's meeting. Thank you, The Board of Directors 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.losgatoschamber. com 1 5- 641 Zola SILICON VALLEY BUSINESS JOURNAL VIEW O.1( T The Btisiness Jottinr l vMIcomas letters to COMMENTARY Bite can reach -Print Editor ,1loryt Afiio at iniuiloeblziournais.com, LOS GATOS:DRAGS OUT NETFLIXLDECISICN Afiler three years orwmnglltrg, the Nettlia project is delayed octet' niore.7Tits time the postponement occur rt'.d because 20 people die -get their say at a hearing. t os atos c\lnyar Barbara Spector called formare meeting es-eti alter citizens delivered pros and cons- to the town council For live lithirs. I get that we live In a democracy aiad evcryonelsentttiet1to those three minutes before the red light comei on. Uut really. Conte on council members,_ ` push the tntttQII rllrcad}. Time Is money=:trot! the develyper,.. LG Buslness7rkcw{U hall, Sou got to wonder wily San Jose Goanelhnnn Flerluigt O1h'erio tors hanging out at the meeting. Was there to poach? Maybe, Mid should he succeed, I say more power to him and any other city ready to oiler` a sweet deal to the streaming media giant. \That appears to be lost in this debate is the number of individuals who actually live in Los Gatos and work a Neatly, these residents 'Len eve this project would be a good thing For their totem. Let me emphasize those last two nards - their tamn. These are not just strangers tvtio ate carpetbagging, Ihey understand the nuances of their community.'they see jobs and revenue as a plus for their town, They think bragging rights like netBix choosing Los Gatos For Rs headquarters sound pretty damn gaud. Rut Ittroa€d ail be For naught, and these worker -residents may scxari be cnnnmudng to another city instead or driving into a SSo,000-square-root campus near the Intersections of Winchester Boulevard and Ilighwuy 85 in Los Gatos. The isstie has become so headed, Mks- an both sides of the debate came with a c.ttlfttg card to the List council mat tIng.'those In favor wore orange 'Approve Albright' stickers. 'those opposed held placards reading -35'350,` advocating kirles: height and a smaller footprint. So it's back to you, limit C.onncit. June 3 may finally he the day it all ends one ti:ty or another. Make the right call and tote yes. 940;Gdy(Jot�ii�'i mtin Ptet Luigi O1wetjo i i turned reads tvuen he lyaike4 tnio the c. y• Gatas,£ Talon Gat nett meeting t}vo weoks,ngo and fiilod cut a earSi lA 5lieiilG'i t ag i1�t{, 11. a ngetttigitetp IVns , Ili kproposed�llbitgl t , Office Phyk wJier °yotFSixs hopsto spia,tdnetp5 H1ghl aSt#35tt1roin3L t usrloni, ali4kr7 i 4019* itetlt met dtdd be l ibiy sitj2id tb ttirn'tlovi. tliusplai butjust iix cage O ie$rto tlitsti 61'e tUlilttti nth NeHhxthg ig�ttaYtdaai 1 141 of iltelndit hveilu' tho sessiop dt'iigg ,s ipidtui ll k, Batt. t couu , ou theTc+ttiMi Oni ot�lixii'�? lint iefosvt0 is r��isali 'eIgliyi$ stn hliai dedlo'atd - lfii pkoposeti w4 smack dtlb atn,lreo , inter change is aeti J witsto gEee• onaniicti toie ��tpnt jotont �i %but soniejn'Los$ntop. It might, as'well.t?b"tyiowo1 l Truck Cen(er.:;" F. plan falls ia►tor t o f vlvltattiie region nofistg eaneantt`titjjob$at„t)'tnis pa`t L4 on hubs, irre@ervo i-[tlid uaturitl envii�tiiirient F. .1 n: vas everyone values and 'proventepstly and tlgl�t� utban�ip>slot l3utit, tnr i better titap thet1ii q 4t t� F Ja Ie'o11 tt'VatSte17Orneo �lx th t s ity i i wv iYristans ttioto iiniiie r;On,plebe' Iipia,tieii t101Yrltdi tuu NdtiliX'Setti cnti t+F4 J { LS fA� $ i t. pus�,nai the treawa ithotlutiie $amohoik era Soine Ve iJe41Aa alt;the otilt ill01 ioyiri' il.iYf.at day ii to(',tveliopd tuitJosedge Itm q?i4eM A nelt+301is itllybistygr n?mng},�; Ill lliilayo! d d444, ' aor$0.oati ig$nAua `,�t;iktanii�t)ai!Yr,,; r..' child 1it.'inie them?; elda Joel Paulson From: jonathan noble <jnoble@outlook.com> Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 11:18 PM To: Council Cc: Joel Paulson Subject: Support Los Gatos / Support Albright Way Dear Mayor Spector and Esteemed Councilmembers: I am writing to implore you to vote to approve Albright Way. The majority has spoken out in favor of this project both in its first iteration, and now in its second. The path forward should be very clear - Los Gatos residents want a strong town today and in the future. As a citizenry, we must focus on the good of the whole. Those opposed to this project represent a small number of residents. Letters made available in the public record against the project continue to come primarily and repetitively from two small constituencies. Meanwhile, support comes from a large, diverse and growing group of businesses, school stakeholders, and residents from throughout the Town. The Los Gatos Weekly Times, San Jose Mercury News, and SJ Business Journal have all urged support for the project. The benefits are clear: revenue for town services, the schools, and a strong customer base for businesses throughout Los Gatos. Netflix reimburses their employees $3m per year for goods and services in Los Gatos. How much more do these same people spend of their own money? The Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce has asked that you support this project because they recognize that the Town's vitality is tied to this decision. As someone who has worked for a municipal government in the land use area, I know that you have the legal authority and right to approve this project using a Planned Development overlay. This is an extraordinary project (in terms of design, site size, location, and benefits) and it is critical to residents, schools and businesses in Town that Netflix is allowed to move forward and grow in Los Gatos. I encourage you to support the Albright Way development proposal that will allow Netflix to remain and grow in Los Gatos, will bring critical revenues the town and our schools, and support a thriving community. Sincerely, Jonathan Noble Joel Paulson From: Jak VanNada <jvannada©gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 11:27 AM To: Diane McNutt; Joe Pirzynski; Steve Rice; Steve Leonardis; BSpector Cc: Joel Paulson Subject: Regarding Albright and an error in financial projections on my part. June 3, 2013 A Sense of What's Right • "The purpose of each community's General Plan is to act as a constitution for development, the foundation upon which all land use decisions are to be based." (Los Gatos General Plan 2010). Please do not change the plan on the fly simply to grab the next best thing. Many years went into planning the town we have, and the plan changed somewhat in 2010 to give the council more latitude. • Latitude should not include changing a well thought out plan to satisfy the ego of having a class- A facility of 550,000 sq. ft. Even if Netflix is the current tenant of one building, who is to say they will grow here given their new competition from Amazon, Google, Apple, Hulu, etc? Everybody wants in on the streaming actions. Netflix may possibly grow, but perhaps not fast enough to give the promised financial benefits any time soon. Increased competition will required cost reductions. Cost reductions start with fixed costs such as rent. This projected rent is substantially higher than the rest of the area. • Pau is Mr. Nice Guy now, but he has a poor reputation with other towns he's worked in. How will that affect us in the future working with him? He's not in this for you, nor us. • 65' gives the development community a new height limit to argue. What then? What happens to the schools if application is for low-income, high rise housing ? You will have set the precedent. • We'll no longer be a "small town" • A change of this size should require an amendment to the "constitution" before the change takes place. It should not be changed on the fly. This project is about ego and money (eg, Netflix; class A buildings), and a developer making bo-coo bucks at the expense of the residents. There will still be a substantial tax influx with all of the other projects. • Our unemployment rate is very low compared to the entire Bay Area and/or the national average. We are below the national "full employment" rate of 5% as I write this. • The EIR recommends 350,000 sq. ft as the environmentally superior option. • ON ANOTHER NOTE: MY FINANCIAL NUMBERS PRESENTED AT THE LAST MEETING WERE OFF FOR THE NORTH 40 AND ALBRIGHT PROJECTS. I FOUND THE ERROR TODAY AFTER HAVING BEEN ON VACATION SINCE THE LAST MEETING AND WILL HAVE A CORRECTION TODAY. THE SCHOOLS WILL STILL GET MORE MONEY, BUT DUE TO A MISPLACED DECIMAL, WILL NOT BE OF THE PREDICTED MAGNITUDE. I REALIZE FISCALIZATION 15 NOT PART OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS, BUT THIS WAS AN ERROR AND NEEDS CORRECTING. 2 June 3, 2013 To: Mayor Barbara Spector Vice Mayor Steve Leonardis Councilperson Marcia Jensen Councilperson Diane McNutt Councilperson Joe Pirzynski From: Lee Quintana 5 Palm Avenue Los Gatos California 95030 Re: Albright PD 12-001, A&S-12-78 and EIR June 3, 2013 Council Agenda During the Town Council Hearing for the Albright project on May 20, 2013 the applicants attorney stated state that based on state law the courts give deference to the Council's legislative exercise and the Council has discretion to find the project consistent with the General Plan. The attorney did not mention the flip side of the state law, i.e. the Council also has discretion: • To find the proposed PD zoning is not consistent with the General Plan (including the GP intensity standards) • To notcertifythe EIR • To denythe project Your decision tonight is an important one and may set Town's direction for decades to come. The Council has heard passionate arguments to both approve and deny the PD zoning and A&S applications. I appreciate the difficult decision the Council will make tonight. But, both as a resident of Los Gatos and a representative of the Los Gatos Citizens for Responsible Development I ask you to use your discretion wisely and deny the Albright Office Park Project. Respectfully, Lee Quintan Attachments: Update of the History of the General Plan Amendments adopted for the Vasona area VTATIA Guidelines - Room for discretion Overhead at May 20, 2013 Council Meeting: Los Gatos Citizens for Responsible Development Statement of Support E-mails from Joel Paulson and Fletcher Parsons Table from Gateway tiles comparing Original PD Approval and two modification of the PD History 1994 General Plan Amendments -Albright Way June 3,2103 TC ATTACHMENT F UPDATE OF HISTORY OF 1994 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR VASONA AREA-ALBRIGHT WAY In a previous letter I stated that I believed further research would show that the Albright PD site has never been identified for intensification and that Vasona Light Rail Area referred to the area in which the sub -areas for intensification of land use were identified and that the policies that apply to "they whole area" were meant to apply to only those sub -areas. Since then ! have asked for and reviewed the files for the 1994 General Plan Amendments in the Clerks Office and have concluded the following:1. • Not correct: My statement that the Albright site has never identified for intensification • Partially correct: John Shenk's (the applicant) statement that the Albright site has long been recognized by the Town as an appropriate site for intensification - yes, but not nearly the intensity requested by the proposed Albright project PD and AA&S • Apparently correct: The Vasona Light Rail Area boundary is the boundary of the area studied to identify identify specific Amendments to General Plan Land Use to allow greater intensity. Amendments were adopted for the sub -areas currently known as Vasona Junction, Oka Road, North Forty and East Los Gatos Blvd. A Brief Summary of the 1994 Amendments: Albright Site (Winchester Corridor Sub -area 3.2) • The Albright Project site is located within Sub -area 3.2 Winchester Corridor, a 36.2 acre Sub -area bounded by Charter Oaks/Creek Trail, Winchester Blvd. on the Highway 85 and Lark Avenue. • The 1994 General Plan Amendments did not alter the land use designation in this sub -area because it was determined that 28 of the 36 acres of Winchester Corridor had capacity for an additional 320.000 square feet of development without a change of its Light Industrial Land Use designation. The study used FAR of 50%. The Town File on the 1994 General Plan Amendments are not available on the Town Website. I made a request to see them through the Clerks office and now request that they be included in the Public Record for the Albright PD and A&S applications by reference. My comments are based on reading the EIR, the Comments on the EIR, the Response to Comments on the EIR, Resolution 1994-56 and skimming the rest of the files of the Planning Commission and Town Council Hearings- 1 History 1994 General Plan Amendments - Albright Way June 3,2103 TC ATTACHMENT F Note: At the May 20, 2013 Town Council staff estimated that under the existing PD with a 50% site coverage 470,000 square feet could be developed with one story buildings, 940,000 square feet with 2 story buildings and 1,400,000 with 3 story buildings. This is not only significantly more intensity than determined in 1994 for the entire 3.2 sub -area, but difficult to see being approved. • Page 39 of the EIR states: "In Los Gatos, the maximum build -out permitted in the General Plan is rarely the degree of development approved by zoning and project review entitlements. However, this EIR discusses the worst case impacts from development build -out permitted by the General Plan with the exception that 50% FAR is used to evaluate impacts on non-residential development in Sub -Areas 2.1,3.2, and 4.1 since it exceeds the most likely development intensity." EIR states that Los Gatos Business Park would be hard to intensify without replacing some buildings and without closing Albright Way and Albright Court and that Intensified High Tech would consist of three stories with structured parking. (EIR p. 40-41, Exhibit 12, and p.22) • No mention was made of changing the the General Plan height restriction. 1994 General Plan Amendments in Generally2: • The Town designated a General Plan Amendment area and determined that the land uses within the Amendment study area should be evaluated and specific amendments proposed to allow intensity of land use greater than was currently allowed under the General Plan. • The focus was to identify intensification sites that would both support and take advantage of the transportation opportunities then thought to be possible, while at the same time providing opportunities t meet the town's housing needs and increase tax revenue to the town. • Not all areas with in the amendment area were identified as sub-ares for study and not all identified sub -areas were proposed General Plan Land Use intensification.3 2 The Amendments and the EIR for the amendments included amendments to General Plan Land Use designations for 4 sub -areas, a completely revised Route 85 Element, text changes to maintain consistency between the land use diagram and revised element and a proposed preliminary Redevelopment Area for the what is now the North 40 area. 3 See EIR Exhibit 2 and page 20 of the EIR 2 History 1994 General Plan Amendments -Albright Way June 3,2103 TC ATTACHMENT F • Six sub -areas were identified, including Sub -area 3.2 (Winchester Corridor) in where the Albright site is located.4 Sub -area 2.1 Capri Triangle Sub -area 3.1 Vasona Park and Ride Area (aka Vasona Station area) Sub -area 3.2 Winchester Corridor Area (includes Albright PD area) Sub -area 3.3 Central Core (aka Oka Road) Sub -area 4.1 West Los Gatos Blvd. (aka North 40) Sub -area 4.2 East Los Gatos Blvd. • The General Plan Land uses changes would allow the following uses for each by Sub- area: 2.1: Intensified shopping center 3.1: Transit park & ride, High Density Housing (15 units/acre) and Neighborhood Commercial 3.2: High Tech intensified 3.3: High density housing 4.1 Regional retail center (large discount stores), a cineplex, restaurants, mixed use with residential above commercial or office (- aka North 40)5 4.2: Mixed use residential above commercial • The amendments were adopted at a time when it was anticipated that Los Gatos would ultimately be served by three Tight rail corridors.6 1. Vasona Light Rail Corridor (anticipated completion in ten years) 2. De Anza corridor (using the SP tracks) - ultimately connected LG with cupertino and Sunnyvale 3. Light rail corridor in the median of 85 - ultimately connecting Los Gatos with San Jose to the east. The EIR: 7 4 EIR for 1994 General Plan Amendments Table A page 27 5 Page 21 of the EIR states the Regional Retail Center "...would be a shopping center with one to four discount anchors. Examples of such anchors are PACE, Price Club, Costco and Horne Club. The minimum footprint for each unit would be approximatelu 100,000 square feet, with the average anchor being similar to the PACE in Antioch, California with 135,000 square feet on 12 acres. "Using the Antioch example...., four anchors would have aproximately 540,000 fquare feet on 48 acres." 6 See EIR p. 26 7 The County of Santa Clara and the City of Campbell commented tht the EIR was so flawed it was not legally adequate. Santa Clara County, San Jose, Campbell, Caltrans and VTA commented that the traffic analysis was not consistent with CMP criteria See attached pages of the Comments on the EIR as an example. The County commented that incorrect trip generation rates were used for the North 40 area and that unrealistic trip reductions were applied, particularly to the North 40 area (over 50%), both of which resulted in a large underestimate of the traffic generated by the proposed amendments. 3 History 1994 General Plan Amendments - Albright Way June 3,2103 TC ATTACHMENT F • The EIR stated the proposed amendments would result in "dysfunctional streets" and proposed the following mitigation: 1. Expand Los Gatos Blvd to three lanes in each direction 2. During peak hours use the parking lanes as travel lanes between Lark Ave and Blossom Hill Road. • No LOS calculations appear to have been done and the feasibility of the proposed mitigation does not appear to have been determined. • The traffic analysis was not based on CMP criteria, no LOS calculations were done, the use of trip generation rates for Regional Retail rather than a Discount Center may have underestimated impacts and trip reduction credits of over of 50% or more for sub- areas 2.1, 3.3 4.1 and 4.2.for 4.1 may have been overly generout. 4 N Not to Scale Sub -Area 3.2 - Current & Proposed Land Use Symbol Current Proposed 0/HT1 Office High Tech Intensified V/HT1 Vacant High Tech Intensified 0* Office Office (to remain as is) Note: My new office tenant will be related to the high tech industry Exhibit 12 N Not to Scale RS • • • Note: Future route of S.R. 85 Median Transit Future route of De Anza Corridor General Plan Amendment Sub -Area Boundaries Letters on the map Indicate zoning, which is not a subject of this EIR Exhibit 4 N Not to Scale ESSEN OE BEE INEIHIN filiallawsweargazo General Plan Amendment area boundary Redevelopment area boundary General alignment of S.R. 85 (under construction) Parcels proposed for change in the General Plan Amendment Project Location Exhibit 2 CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS & POLICIES The General Plan Amendment area contains many land use designations from the Los Gatos General Plan that would change as a result of the General Plan Amendment. The designations are shown in Exhibits 6 to 9 and described in Table A. Table A: General Plan Designation Changes in the General Plan Amendment Area Current Designations Sub -Area 2.1. Capri Triangle* Mixed Use Commercial Sub -Area 3.1. Vasona Corridor Transit Park & Ride Light Industrial Sub -Area 3.2. Winchester Corridor* Sub -Area 3.3. Central Core Light Industrial Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Open Space Office Professional Public Agriculture Sub -Area 4.1. West of Los Gatos Blvd. Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Mixed Use Commercial Agriculture Sub -Area 4.2. East of Los Gatos Blvd. Low Density Residential Office Professional Mixed Use Commercial * No changes are proposed in this Sub -Area. Proposed Designations Mixed Use Commercial High Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Light Industrial Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Open Space Office Professional Public Mixed Use Commercial Mixed Use Commercial 27 Presentation Albright Office Park (PD-12-078, S-12-078 and EIR) Town Council May 20, 2013 ATTACHMENT B Los Gatos Citizens for Responsible Development The Los Gatos Citizens for Responsible Development support re -development of the Los Gatos Business Park LLD consistent with the: • Goals &Policies and GP Light Industrial Designation • Town's Commercial Design Guidelines We support a project that: • Protects our environment • Minimizes traffic impacts in an already congested area • Minimizes visual impacts to the adjacent neighbors and along highly traveled roadways • Maintains our small town character • Is compatible and in harmony with height/mass and scale of surrounding development • Protects adjacent residential development • Optimizes open space by utilizing underground parking and that minimizes surface parking • Provides generous landscaped buffers between surface parking areas or structures adjacent to Los Gatos Creek Trail or adjacent to residential development We believe it will not possible to achieve the above goals without revising the Albright Office Park proposal by 1) reducing areas covered by driveways, surface parking, and buildings footprints and 2) reducing the height of the buildings EIR Addendum 11 �c J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Summary of Site and Area Tabulations 1u d v `co W O N N a PO in co ® 0 a N 0 7 ci V1 U al+ V1 iQ U O v� 00 0 U C U N NI CO N O V N at U o W v 1n /N, iI�'/ oo in 69. d O 63. 00c. O N N N H H H W+ in N m m CA 4V in vi 0 r' co co O 7 O N V1 (n 1n K1 N a 4-3 N N N 0606 N 0 O 1T N cncn 0 0 6 62 r W p O •ciN I h . h w T 7 T 00 O^ 01 N N N A VJ b ch rn a `morn N P N lh N i/1 Vl M d v b O 0 04 m 1 G Upd � fi a m y m be 0 0 •O N Ca Ay cc,,a< � 7.9 pVI oV W 6 0 . 3o 0❑ Q v ,ro Q W up a,g CG a ab o61 4.00 oa N v a ti q u w d c t4. V 2 d °' a o 0 N0 0 40., u n 0. O O w in l U t ' 3 m so m y — a W inwd 8 Oi .-. g.i.. V O O tU9 3 G O n, d V N 0 3 N O H c. U 0 EL .0 b m -, ce v W In `• 01 N d tl a u op a a o 1 m CJco Orn ro aa00 CV C C G Z 'C 7 C G N 0 y N Pq °J c 1^n N Naa 8ae8.,2 g w 8 II La 0 Vn ¢10 HO j ..\ • <14 " \\ \ \\ /\ ! 1019 STALLS �-� L 560 STALLS 3.50 STALLS/1000 GS/ \ \ II CURRENTLY APPROVED PROJECT 534.950 SE I2.26 ACRES 1 SITE COVERAGE A9.200 SiSITE COVERAGE Ir 120,920 Si 52,565 50 _ 00,591 5F urriut 'Rau; 6NyOINC AREA (pl[/500j Race ARE:. R9II0 (0:o/R&O) TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 101010E / R&D 14Cu51NC [ (JIAN'LO Y KS) LANDSCAPE (GROUND FLOOR PATIOS OPEN CORRIDORS 'RESIDENTIAL) Y 11014E 007I1.4L: 0 PAVERS) TOTAL SITE COVERAGE: PARKING PROVIDED: AT GRADE BELOW GRADE 8. \\ [ 5 VICINITY MAP � Los Gatos Gateway toject_Deta Ftesitentlai May 12, 20_03 rev4• RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DATA: APPROVED PROJECT MODIFIED PROJECT IREQ'D/PERMITTED SITE DATA General Plan Designation High density res., neighborhood commercial High density res., neighborhood commercial Zoning district CM:PO CM:PD Land use R&D/Offices & Residential R&D/Offices & Residential . PO Ordinance 2095 Lot size _ 534,960 sf 12.28 acres 534,960 sf 12.28 acres 40,000 sf NUMBER OF UNITS Market Rate Below Market Rate 108 •- 27 246' 49 108 Total Units - Density (excludes 8MP) 135 8.8 295 20.0 135 'r. EXTERIOR MATERIALS siding trim accent windows roofing exterior plaster woad ext, plaster & wood trim wood/alum - clay tile exterior plaster wood ext. plaster & wood trim wood/alum clay tile FLOOR AREA (residential) - 1st conditioned space corridor misc unconditioned 41,399 sf 11,662 sf 4,504 sf 93,487 sf 1,798 sf 4,094 sf subtotal open corridor patio 57,565 sf 0 sf 3,673 sf 99,379 sf 17,412 5f 10,018 sf rand'' conditioned space_ ' - 'corridor misc unconditioned - - 42,696 sf' 6,774 sf - 245 sf --96,063 sf 3,848 sf 3,564 sf - subtotal open corridor balcony 49,715 sf 0 sf 3,673 sf 103,475 sf 17,165 sf 7,059 sf 3rd conditioned space corridor misc unconditioned 43,762 sf '7,074 sf 0 sf 91,611 sf 5,036 sf 2,705 sf subtotal open corridor balcony 50,836-sf 0 sf 4,075 sf 99,352 sf I6,038 sf 4.223 sf Total Floor Area; (excludes open corridor 158,116 sf patio & balcony) 302,206 sf BUILDING SETBACKS .. - front rear side side street NA 240 ft 16 ft 10 ft _ NA 280 ft 25 ft 16 ft 240 ft 16 ft 10 ft MAXIMUM HEIGHT excluding tower: 41'-0" 41'-0" 41'-0" COVERAGE BUILDING Building Coverage Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 10.8% 29.6% 18.6% 56.5% OPEN SPACE Usable Private Usable Public within parking lot Min. landscape buffer at property lines 72sf /unit 64,300 sf none 6 ft - 72sf /unit 172,424 sf none " 6 ft 72sf/unit 64,300sf Eft PARKING PROVIDED (Residential only) standard accessible 237 stalls 7 stalls 523 stalls 11 stalls Total Parking Provid'. stalls/unit 244 stalls 1.81 534 stalls 1.81 244 1.81 stalls/unit shared with residential: 34 stalls 20 stalls 34 Exhibit C Los Gatos Gateway Project_Data-Com_ mercial (May 12, 2003 rev 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT DATA: MODIFIED PROJECT IREQ'D/PERMITTED SITEDATA General Plan Designation High density res., neighborhood commercial High density res., neighborhood commercial Zoning district CM:PD CM:PD Land use R&D/Offices & Residential R&D/Offices & Residential Lot size 534,960 sf 12.28 acres 534,960 sf 12.28 acres 40,000sf EXTERIOR MATERIALS siding trim accent windows roofing exterior plaster wood ext. plaster & wood trim wood/alum clay tile exterior plaster wood ext. plaster & wood trim wood/alum clay tile FLOOR AREA (Ofc. Buildin•s.A&B together') - . - - first floor 120,030 sf 49,200 sf - second floor 105,214 sf 38,400 sf third floor 62,756 sf 32,400 sf Total Floor Area: 288,000 sf 120,000 sf 288,000sf BUILDING SETBACKS front rear side side street NA 75 ft 230 ft 75 ft NA 75 ft 486 ft 75 ft 75 ft 230 ft 75 ft MAXIMUM HEIGHT excluding tower: 49' - 6" 49' - 6" 49' - 6" COVERAGE BUILDING - - - - Building Coverage 22.4% 9.20/0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 53.8% 22.40/0 COVERAGE OTHER THAN BUILDING (for total site: ofc/R&D and-residentia) Landscaping 220,991 sf 224,742 sf 41.30/0 42.0% Paving (pkg & drives) 136,454 sf 134,528 sf - - 25.5% 25.1% Min. landscape buffer at property lines 6 ft 6 ft 6ft PARKING PROVIDED (Ofc/R&D only) standard accessible 884 stalls 18 stalls 388 stalls 8 stalls Total Parking Provide stalls/1,000gsf 902 stalls 3.13 stalls 396 stalls 3.30 stalls 3.13 stalls/1,000sf shared with residentiai: 34 stalls 20 stalls I 34 i2J cyrewki s 9s2'54 s -o /69 ova 8 . 4? ce 9 az gico re-6 g u.,} t 61R., ' uin1.)5/ ccw % is 'vas 404 Letter to Council dated June 3, 2013 Albright Office Park Se TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADOPTED MAY 1998, UPDATED MARCH 2009 While the Town is required to follow these guidelines for CMP facilities they also allow discretion how the TIA is prepared in some areas and discretion with regard to non- CMP facilities. AREAS WHERE DISCRETION BY THE LEAD AGENCY IS POSSIBLE WITHIN THE VTA TIA GUIDELINES: Why has traffic analysis always chosen the least conservative method when given discretion to use a more conservative choice. The following are sections of the VTA TIA where a lead agency has discretion. Chapter 1 - CMP Legislation and Role of CP 1.6:(page 3) No exemption is necessary for deviation of trip generation rat, trip assignment or default values in LOS Analysis Chapter 2 - TIA Scoping 2.3 (page 11) Determine other transportation issues to address Chapter 6 - Analysis periods and LOS methodologies 6.2.1 (page 19) LOS urban analysis 6.2.4 (page 21) Bicycles 6.2.5 (page 21) Pedestrians 6.3 (page 23) Vacant or under utilized site (3rd bullet) 6.3 (page 24) Addition to existing development project (1st bullet) Expected Growth (2nd bullet) Additional scenarios (last bullet) Chapter 7 - Existing Conditions (Page 26) 4. Held Data 5. Field Observation 7.2 (page 27) Description of Existing Roadway Chapter 8 - Project Conditions 8.1.1 (page 29) Last Paragraph 8.1.3 (page 29(Modal Split 8.2 (page 30) Trip Reduction Strategies and Assumptions Table 4 (page 32) Maximum vehicle Trip reduction rates 8.2.2 (page 31-33) Mixed Use 8.2.3 (page 30) TDM 8.2.4 (page 35) Proximity to Rail or major bus line 8.2.5 (page 36)Combined trip reduction i Letter to Council dated June 3, 2013 Albright Office Park ATTACHMENT A 8.3 Trip (page 37) Trip Distribution Chapter 9 - Project Impacts 9.1 (page 40) Project impacts not limited to: 9.1.2 (page 41) Queuing Impacts long term Chapter 10 - Mitigation Measures (page 45) c. Level of Service( d. 4. mitigation if not already included in project Chapter 11 - Future Year Cumulative Conditions 11.2.1 (page 47) Long term cumulative project 2 Fwd: Mee''ng on Albright D 6/3/13 10:10 AM Fwd: Meeting on Albright From: Lee Quintana <leeandpaul@earthlink.net> To: Quintana Lee Subject: Fwd: Meeting on Albright D Date: Jun 3, 2013 8:56 AM Begin forwarded message: From: Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov> Date: May 13, 2013 10:41:24 AM PDT To: Lee Quintana <leeandpaul@earthlink.net> Subject: RE: Meeting on Albright Lee - The following are responses to your inquiries in your e-mail below: 1. What other 65' structures in Town? Page 8.4-7 FEIR states the Albright structure at 65' is larger than what is found nearly everywhere else in Town. We have removed -nearly" via an Errata that will be attached to the Towri Council Stale Report. 2. Where does the General Plan say GP standards can be varied? See 4.1.6 FEIR Pages LU-16 and Lit- I 7 of the General Plan state: "The Planned Development Overlay 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 the General Plan are consistent. Commercial, residential or industrial property or a mixture of these uses may be considered for a Planned Development Overlay " Height and land use intensity are development standards. According to the General Plan, a Planned Development Overlay zone can set "specific development standards,- which could deviate from those in the General Plan as long as the Planned Development Overlay zone is consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies. The Town has used this interpretation previously. For example. the Town approved a PD Overlay zone for the Netlhx/Aventino project that permitted buildings that were taller than otherwise allowed under the General Plan on land with the -I.igltt Industrial" land use designation and also permitted less parkins than otherwise required by the Town Code_ As the General Plan states on page 1Nf-1 I, the "General Plan is intended to meet multiple, and sonremm<s competing, policy objectives Therefore. the Town may not be able to adhere to every policy in every decision that it makes to implement this General Plan. The Town Council has final discretion over which polies objective will have priority in instances where there are competing policy objectives affecting a single decision. The Cown Council determines whether a proposed Planned Development Overlay zone that varies otherwise applicable development http://webmall.c.earthlink.net/wam/printable.jsp?msgld=10442&x=-1444203453 Page 1 of 5 Fwd: Meeting on Albright D 6/3/13 10:10 AM standards is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. 3. Where in zoning code is it stated that land coverage for PD's is calculated on gross acreage (i.e. streets and circulation are not deducted)? Public streets would be deducted for lot coverage based on the definition of"lot area" in the Zoning Code, but no public streets are proposed for this project. 4. Why hasn't the text of the EIR and the PD Land Use Exhibit been modified to state that office serving uses/amenities and ancillary uses are used interchangeable and will not be open to the public, as stated in the staff report? Neither the Land Use Exhibit nor the Ordinance clearly state these uses would not be open to the public. Instead the amended language is more ambiguous rather than more specific. Page 2 of the PD Ordinance states "These office serving and ancillary uses shall not be available to the general public." In addition, page 8.2-2 of the EIR clarifies that office -serving and ancillary uses are for use by only those employed at the site and their business invitees, and not the public. 5. Is there a height restriction for telecommunication antennas on the garage? No. Under the Town Code, section 29.10.090, "[t]owers, spires, elevator and mechanical penthouses, cupolas, wireless telecommunication antennas, similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances which are not used for human activity or storage may be higher than the maximum height pelnlitted by the zone." 6. Do existing building cross the proposed new parcel lines? REQUESTS 1. Please provide me the following infoilnation listed in Zoning Code 29.80.120 (6): a. Entire area of the planned development (have) b. Public streets (have) C. Private streets None_ The applicant will create new parking lots and driveways on the site, but no private streets are proposed. d. Driveway Driveways and uncovered parking areas total 363,510 square feet. This area is found on Civil Sheet C3.0, which lists the driveway and uncovered parking area under the category of"Private Street and Driveways." Although the category is labeled "Private Street and Driveways," this particular project does not propose any private (or public) streets. http://wehmall.c.earthlink.net/wam/printable.jsp?msgid=10442&x=-1444203453 Page 2 of 5 Fwd: Mee''ng on Albright D 6/3/13 10:10 AM e. Land covered by buildings including garages (have) f. Landscaped public open space None g. Landscaped private open space Landscaped private open space will total 273,726 square feet. h. Uncovered off-street parking See d. above, which stales that driveways and uncovered parking areas will total 363,510 square feet. 1. Net land after deduction of all public and private streets The project does not propose public streets Therefore, the net lot area is equal to the total sire arca 2. Also include the above information in the EIR and as a data sheet in the staff report (including both existing and proposed) The above information is found in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the EIR.. 3. Include a Land Use Plan in Land Use Exhibit of the PD plan set. (See Zoning Code 29.80.120 (1)) The site plan included as Figure 3-4 in the EIR shows the use of proposed buildings and satisfies the requirements of Town Code § 29.80 120(11. 4. Include a "land use plan" in the EIR and to project the PD Land Use Exhibit that delineates the following uses on the site: footprint of office structures, site circulation (streets and driveways), parking (surface parking and garage), landscaping and open space. All of this information is provided in the plans_ 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: Lee Quintana[mailto:leeandpaul@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 11:40 PM To: Joel Paulson Subject: Meeting on Albright Joel, This is a summary of my meeting with you and Sandy Bailey on April 14, 2013 and follow up phone call with Joel Paulson on May 3rd. http://webmail.c.earthllnk.net/wam/printable.jsp?msgid=10442&x=-1444203453 Page 3 of 5 Fwd: Meeting on Albright D 6/3/13 10:10 AM QUESTIONS ANSWERED • Town has no definition for open space. • Open space could include green space/hardscape that is associated buildings and pedestrian circulation. • There is no requirements for parking to be a separate category • Medical and Dental Offices means offices for MD's and DDS's • The Albright project is consistent with the General Plan based on the Sobrato/Gateway Project • Exception being requested to zoning regulations for Albright PD and A&S: o height o parking ratio o signage including signs facing freeway o PD Land Use Exhibit and the PD Zoning Ordinance have been amended to state these uses would not be open to the public. o Fence between rail road properly and this site will run along the entire length of the shared property line increasing pedestrian safety by preventing access to the rail road bright across Route 85 from the project site. It would not necessarily prevent use of the bridge by pedestrians walking along Winchester, or by employees from Albright once they exit the property at the new signal QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS PENDING • What other 65' structures in Town? See 8.4-7 FEIR states the Albright structure at 65' is larger than what is found nearly everywhere else in Town. • Where does the General Plan say GP standards can be varied? See 4.1.6 FEIR: • Where in zoning code is it stated that land coverage for PD's is calculated on gross acreage (Le. streets and circulation are not deducted) • Why hasn't the text of the EIR and the PD Land Use Exhibit been modified to state that office serving uses/amenities and ancillary uses are used interchangeable and will not be open to the public, as stated in the staff report? Neither the Land Use Exhibit nor the Ordinance clearly state these uses would not be open to the public. Instead the amended language is more ambiguous rather than more specific. • Is there a height restriction for telecommunication antennas on the garage? • Do existing building cross the proposed new parcel lines? REQUESTS • Please provide me the following information listed in Zoning code 29.80.120 (6): • a. Entire area of the planned development (have)) o b. Public streets (have) o c. Private streets o d. Driveway o e. Land covered by buildings including garages (have) o f. Landscaped public open space o g. Landscaped private open space o h. Uncovered off-street parking o i. Net land after deduction of all public and private streets http://webmail.c.earthlink.net/wam/printable.jsp?msgid=10442&x=-1444203453 Page 4 of 5 Fwd: Meeting on Albright D 6/3/13 10:10 AM • Also include the above information in the EIR and as a data sheet in the staff report ( including both existing and proposed) • Include a Land Use Plan in Land Use Exhibit of the PD plan set. (See Zoning Code 29.80.120 (1) o Include a "land use plan" in the EIR and to project the PD Land Use Exhibit that delineates the following uses on the site: footprint of office structures, site circulation (streets and driveways), parking (surface parking and garage), landscaping and open space. Thanks, Lee Quintana http://webmail.c.earthlink.net/wam/pnntable.jsp?msgid=1O442&x=-i444203453 Page 5 of 5 From: John Shepardson [mailto:sheoardsonlaw@me.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 11:59 AM To: Council; BSpector; Steve Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: Albright Merc article 1. Overlooks 350K best land use according to EIR 2. Overlooks no VTA funding and projected low ridership 3. VTA was part of justification for first Netflix buildings I understand 4. Article long on opinion, short on facts 5. Land bought for 2.33M just slightly over 1/2 of what I understand Grovesnor paid Other: 1. Inflated development costs 2. Gateway delayed 3. I'm informed developer is listing 550K as a done deal on his website JS:) JOHN A. SHEPARDSON, ESQ. 59 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite Q Los Gatos, CA 95030 T: (408) 395-3701 F: (408) 395-0112 From: Shivaun Robinson[mailto:shivaunrobinson©gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 12:10 PM To: Council Subject: Support for Netflix Hi all - I support the new Netflix building project and will be there tonight to show my support for something that will greatly benefit both where I work and the city in which I live. I hope you will do the same! Thank you and see you tonight! Shivaun Robinson Los Gatos Resident Netflix Employee From: Marcia Fariss[mailto:marciaeartstr@gmail.comj Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 12:29 PM To: Council Subject: Albright Development Mayor Spector, Fellow City Council members, I frequent the area of the proposed Albright Office Park development several times each week. Therefore, I feel that my input is justified in spite of the fact that I no longer live in Los Gatos. I heartily disagree with the Mercury's editorial (6-3) regarding the Albright Office Park Development. It is not, as the editorial claimed a "transportation hub." It is a partial freeway interchange that is already congested with vehicles several times a day. The Mercury claims that the 4 story development "preserves the natural environment" yet they don't explain how. Frankly, I cannot envision how such a massive development can preserve the natural environment when there will be increased pollution from the additional vehicular traffic. Unless new arrangements are made, there is no major public transportation available at that location. Again, how then is this project located at a "transportation hub" and how does it preserve the environment? Lastly, the Mercury claims that the Albright Project does not threaten the town character because it's "nowhere near downtown." Seems to me that there is more to Los Gatos than simply its downtown! This location is the entrance to Los Gatos and its presence will affect the entire town's character. As for jobs, yes we need jobs. How many more jobs will that project create? Netflix is already there, albeit scattered through several buildings. Are more companies planning to occupy the Albright buildings? All in all, the Albright project is too massive for the area and should be seriously downsized to maintain Los Gatos' character, reduce pollution and traffic congestion. M. Fariss Saratoga From: Jo Ann Brenning[mailto:michelangelosgrief@att.net] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 12:43 PM To: Council Cc: jpaulson@losgatos.gov; Cindie Taylor; Janette Judd; shepardsonlaw@me.com Subject: RE: THE ALBRIGHT ADJACENT DEAR MAYOR AND ASSOCIATED "TOWN " COUNCIL MEMBERS, AS A CHARTER 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 POLLUTION, AND THE OVERWHELMING BUILDING HEIGHTS, WILL BLOCK OUT THE BEAUTY,UNIQUENESS, AND THE GORGEOUS LANDSCAPING, WHICH ARE VERY IMPORTANT REASONS WHY MANY OF US CHOSE TO LIVE HERE. MAKING OUR HOME HERE ALLOWS US PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP AND A FEELING OF SAFETY FOR OUR CHILDREN! IF THIS GOES THROUGH -- LARK AVENUE WILL BECOME A SHOPPING MALL PARKING LOT!!! THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT WILL BECOME OF OUR TOWN. I AM THE POSTER CHILD WHOSE CAR WAS COMPLETELY DESTROYED, LAST YEAR,AS I WAS TURNING LEFT FROM CHARTER OAKS AVE. ONTO LARK! AS OUR MAYOR WILL RECALL, AFTER INSPECTING TI-HS ROAD HIMSELF, HE CALLED THIS INTERSECTION THE WORST IN LOS GATOS!!! I ALSO FEAR THAT LARK AVE., BEING THE ONLY ENTRANCE/EXIT FOR OUR WHOLE COMMUNITY, PUTS US ALL IN A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION IN CASE OF EMERGENCIES. I SINCERELY THANK FOR LISTENING TO MY CONCERNS, JO ANN BRENNING From: Stacey Escobar[mailto:StacevEscobar©escobardiamonds.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 12:52 PM To: Council Subject: Albright Project Attention Council - I am completely AGAINST this project. I know I speak for many of the thousands in residence of Wimbledon Place, Charter Oaks, The Mill Complex, La Rinconada, and many others. I purchased my home knowing I would proudly own a beautiful place in Los Gatos. Specifically AWAY from congested traffic, stop lights, undesirable views, DECREASED property values, and all those things that LARGE buildings cause in any neighborhood. Such buildings DONOT belong in our town- no matter your location. Would we allow this building on Los Gatos Blvd?, Blossom Hill Road? North Santa Cruz? Where do you draw the line?- Not my neighborhood, please, it IS STILL Los Gatos after all, isn't it?! Raising funds for our town should not be at the expense of ANY resident of Los Gatos. Please share my letter tonight. See you at the meeting. Respectfully, Stacey Escobar From: Peter Larko [mailto:peterlarko©gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 1:29 PM To: BSpector; Steve Leonardis; Diane McNutt; joirsvnskk Iosgatosca.gov; Marcia Jensen Cc: Town Manager; Clerk; Council; cynthia@cniames.com Subject: Albright Office Park Honorable Mayor and Town Councilmembers- As a long time Los Gatan, I am asking you once again to please support the Albright Way Office Park project. The editorial in today's San Jose Mercury News explains all of the reasons more thoroughly and succinctly I could but, as a practicing, certified land use planner, I want to emphasize that all of the reasons they cite are valid. My only regret is that the applicant was required to reduce the size of the project from what was an even better fit for this site. Thank you for your consideration, Peter Larko 313 Albert Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: Anna Bergeson [mailto:anna.bergeson@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 1:58 PM To: Council Subject: Albright Project Dear Council, I am a Los Gatos homeowner. I urge you to think carefully about the permanence of this decision. Once the building goes up, it will never come down. We'll be stuck with this building for the next 50 years. Please don't ruin the integrity and future well being of our community. Los Gatos is one of the most exclusive towns in the South Bay. Why ruin such a lovely town by constructing such a monstrosity? We believe the albright project will cause many future problems for our Los Gatos neighborhoods: traffic congestion, lower property values, huge ugly eyesore. Do the right thing, keep our charming lovely town...charming & lovely. Anna Bergeson Sent from my iPhone From: Cecilia Prentice [mailto:ceciliai rentice©yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 2:05 PM To: Council Subject: Netflix Dear City Council, I hope you will support Netflix at tonight's city council meeting. They have been a good neighbor in Los Gatos and brought a lot to the community. Cecilia Prentice From: Jill Thorp [mailto:iillthoro(@vahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 2:12 PM To: Council Subject: Netflix Supporter! As a resident of Los Gatos, I sincerely hope that you will support Netflix in their new Albright project. As a mother of two, I strongly believe that Netflix has contributed a lot to our town, our school system and our property values. Please keep this valuable company here in Los Gatos- rather than allow them to move to another town. Thank you, Jill Thorp Joel Paulson From: madeline hagar <madhagar@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 2:29 PM To: Council; Joel Paulson Subject: Approve Albright Dear Mayor: I am a high school student at Los Gatos High. Please approve Albright because it provides money for our schools. Please do not reduce the size and take money away from educating the next generation. This does matter to my friends and me. Every dollar counts when a student's future is on the line. I respectfully ask for your yes vote. Sincerely, Madeline Hagar Sent from my Windows Phone