Loading...
#5 Desk itemMEETING DATE: 06/17/13 ITEM NO: DESK ITEM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: JUNE 17, 2013 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD-12-001; 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. APNS: 424-31-053, 054, 063, 424-32-038, 045, 049, 054, 059, 060, AND 063. 1. ADOPT THE REVISED RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROJECT; AND 2. ADOPT AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING ORDINANCES 1247, 1366, AND 1955 AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM CM:PD TO CM:PD AT 90 - 160 ALBRIGHT WAY AND 14600 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD. REMARKS: Public comments After the staff report and addendum were prepared and distributed, additional correspondence was received for the period of 3:01 p.m. Friday, June 14, 2013, through 3:00 p.m. Monday, June 17, 2013 (Attachment 10). Council comments In response to Council comments and questions, the following changes to the Planned Development Ordinance are recommended to clarify the Council's prior approval and direction: 1. Section II, paragraph 1, strike "could" 2. Section II, paragraph 2, bullet 3, strike "primarily" 3. Section V, paragraph 3, ARCHITECTURE AND SITE (A&S) APPROVAL REQUIRED: A separate A&S application shall be required for future changes to the project. TheAnv future A&S application shall be referred to Planning Commission for a PREPARED BY: Sandy L. Baily, Director of Community Development 6 Reviewed by: IN Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance N:1DEV\TC REPORTS\2013Vunel7Albright2nd ReadingDESKFinal.doc PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 90-160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Boulevard June 17, 2013 recommendation to Town Council. Town Council shall make the final determination on anv future A&S applications. 4. Section V, paragraph 4, COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES: Future A&S applications shall be reviewed for compliance with the Common Design Guidelines of the Commercial Design Guidelines. 5. Section V, paragraph 5, GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAMS: Future A&S applications shall be reviewed for compliance with applicable sections of the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. 6. Section V, paragraph 8, bullet 5, Parking Garage 35' (thirty five feet), exclusive of tower elements, elevator overrun structures. and other similar architectural elements and inclusive of solar panels with underground parking possible after subsequent review. 7. Section V, paragraph 45, COMMUNITY BENEFIT: Community Benefit is required as offered by the applicant in Exhibit 9 of Attachment 4 and Attachment 9 of the Town Council Staff Report for their meeting on May 20, 2013. This includes the applicant's offer to provide $1 per constructed square foot of new office/R&D buildings and dirt from the site as might be timely available for improvements to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. 8. Section V, paragraph 47, SIGNS: No shall be 4 Bible rron Highway 85There will be no freeway visible signage. The following are additional questions from Council members with staffs response in italics: Section V, paragraph 46 — Should "keep clear" performance standard be removed given potential safety issues? Staff does not believe Section V, paragraph 46, should be removed. As is standard practice, PPW staff will review improvement plans for both on -site and off -site improvements. This improvement will be reviewed to ensure a safety issue is not created. The language regarding "or equivalent markings or signage" allows an alternative action if necessary. Section V, paragraph 72 — Is there any recitation or description of what is going to happen with the public easements on the property currently held by the Town. Section Vparagraph 72, contains language regarding vacation of the existing right-of-way easements for public access which will be part of the Tentative and Final Maps required for implementing the project as approved by Council. Further, California Streets & Highways Code section 8351(a) provides that once the Town vacates a public service or street easement, then the property is owned free and clear of the easement. In this case, the underlying property owner who owns the Albright property owns the underlying land and will continue to own it, free & clear of easements. The Final Maps will return to Council for approval. By vacating the easements, the Town eliminates future maintenance or liability obligations for this property as is standard practice for most planned developments. EIR Certification — 1) given that Judge Huber still needs to make a determination that the Town has complied with CEQA, can the Town, in paragraph N, simply assert that it has complied?; and 2) when does this go before the Court for that determination? Paragraph N. is the appropriate statement pursuant to CEOA requirements. The Town has completed an EIR and certification of the EIR by the Town is based on the Town 's determination that the Town has complied with CE0.-1. The date for returning to the Court has not been set yet. PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 90-160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Boulevard June 17, 2013 Why wasn't a signalized intersection considered for the Charter Oaks/Lark Avenue intersection? A signal warrant study evaluates: peak hour, pedestrian volume, 8 hour vehicular volume, 4 hour vehicular volume, roadway network, school crossing, coordinate signal system, and crash experience. The Town performed a signal warrant study as part of the Lark/University intersection improvements over a year ago and it was determined that a traffic signal at Lark/Charter Oaks did not meet the signal warrant criteria at that time. A report on this subject was presented to the Council at the April 4, 2011 meeting. Staff comments Staff has found two performance standards (Section V, paragraph 103 and 105) and two conditions of approval (Condition 93 and 95) that need to be clarified to reflect the Council's prior approval. The proposed revisions are illustrated in underline and strikethrough format as follows: 103. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: The developer shall pay a fee proportional to the project's share of transportation improvement needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit application is made. The fee shall be paid before the building permit is issued. The traffic impact mitigation fee for this project, using the current fee schedule and addition of 300235,000 square -feet of Office Park (ITE Code 750) is $4-927960149,280. The final fee shall be calculated from the final plans using the rate schedule in effect at the time of the building permit application, using a trip generation rate based on use. 105 LARK/UNIVERSITY TRAFFIC SIGNAL: Prior to issuance of a building permit or recordation of any map, the developer shall pay $228,639.11 184,089.52 to reimburse the Town for their fair share contribution towards the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of University Avenue and Lark Avenue. The contribution is based on 5 -46 percent of the total construction and design cost of $397,550.63. 93. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: The developer shall pay a fee proportional to the project's share of transportation improvement needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit application is made. The fee shall be paid before the building permit is issued. The traffic impact mitigation fee for this project, using the current fee schedule and addition of 300235,000 square -feet of Office Park (ITE Code 750) is $4-9-27960149,280. The final fee shall be calculated from the final plans using the rate schedule in effect at the time of the building permit application, using a trip generation rate based on use. 95. LARK/UNIVERSITY TRAFFIC SIGNAL: Prior to issuance of a building permit or recordation of any map, the developer shall pay $228,639.11184,089.52 to reimburse the Town for their fair share contribution towards the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of University Avenue and Lark Avenue. The contribution is based on 54.-46 percent of the total construction and design cost of $397,550.63. PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 90-160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Boulevard June 17, 2013 ATTACHMENTS: Attachments 1-8 (previously received xvith the staff report): 1. Final PD Ordinance (includes Exhibit A, Map of the PD Overlay; and Exhibit B, Development Plans) 2. Redline Version of the PD Ordinance (without Exhibit A and Exhibit B) 3. Final CEQA Resolution (includes Exhibit A, Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program; and Exhibit B, Findings of Fact) 4. Redline Version of CEQA Resolution (includes Exhibit B, Findings of Fact only) 5. Final Architecture and Site Conditions of Approval 6. Redline Version of Architecture and Site Conditions of Approval 7. Public comments received from 3:01 p.m., June 3, 2013, through 12:00 p.m. June 13. 2013 (24 pages) 8. Staff response to e-mail from John Shepardson Attachment 9 (previously received with Addendum) 9. Public comments received from 3:01 p.m. June 13, 2013, through 3:00 p.m. June 14, 2013 (2 pages) Attachments received with this Desk Item 10. Public comments received from 3:01 p.m. June 14, 2013, through 3:00 p.m. June 17. 2013 (20 pages) SLB:JP:ah Joel Paulson From: anne4pt@aol.com ,ent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 9:43 AM To: Council Cc: Joel Paulson Subject: Albright Revisions Dear Council Members After reviewing the agenda for the June 17th meeting regarding the Albright Office Park, I did not see the Albright revisions that John Shenk presented at May 20th meeting mentioned in the agenda staff report or attachments. If I missed the revisions in Staff Report , Attachments 1-8, Exhibit B of Attachment 1, or addendum, please let me know where I can locate them. They should be included in the final resolution. Thank you, Anne Robinson Charter Oaks The Albright Revisions were dropped into my Charter Oaks mailbox on Friday May 17th and presented by John Shenk at the May 20th Town Council meeting 1 ATTACHMENT 10 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Joel Paulson rom: anne4pt@aol.com went: Sunday, June 16, 2013 2:49 PM To: Joel Paulson; Council Subject: Fwd: "Keep Clear Zone" at Charter Oaks and Lark Ave - Albright Office Park Joel Paulson and Town Council Below is a follow-up email I sent to Mayor Spector and Council Member Jensen. I am still waiting for an answer regarding the safety of a "Keep Clear Zone" on Lark Ave in front of Charter Oaks Drive. Jennifer Grewal and I were told it was unsafe by Hexagon and Jesse Pu yet it remains as a mitigation measure on the Albright Office Park resolution. Is a "Keep Clear Zone" on Lark Ave in front of Charter Oaks Dr safe? I would like an answer before the Town Council ratifies the resolution at the Monday, June 17th Town Council meeting? And why wasn't a signalized intersection considered? According to Jennifer Grewal, the distance between the Oka Rd and Garden Hill signals on Lark Ave and the distance between the Wimbleton and Lark Ave signals on Winchester is less than the distance between the University and Charter Oaks Dr on Lark Ave. Thank you, Anne Robinson Original Message From: anne4pt <anne4pt@aol.com> To: bspector <bspector(a losgatosca.gov>; mjensen <mjensenalosgatosca.gov> ant: Sun, Jun 16, 2013 10:27 AM Subject: "Keep Clear Zone" Dear Mayor Spector and Council Member Jensen I have emailed both of you regarding the safety of the "Keep Clear Zone". I have not received any response on the safety of a "Keep Clear Zone" from either of you or the Town. It is mentioned several times in the June 17th Agenda - Albright resolution, but again no mention of the safety and feasibility of this mitigation measure. Jennifer and I have researched this in the past and were told it was not safe by one of the owners of Hexagon and Jesse Pu, yet it remains as a mitigation measure on the Albright development. How? and Why? Also, why was a signal at this intersection not considered? Anne Robinson i This Page Intentionally Left Blank L May 17, 2013 Charter Oaks Neighbors..... C ON,L,n c ` \ e� 2 4\-\.Q.:s-e_ ceti s 5 \\0\r- ocPc(obmson \L John Shenk, the owner of the Albright Way development, forwarded the attached revised plans for the proposed Albright Office Park, to be presented to the Town Council on Monday, May 20th. I am distributing copies to Charter Oaks residents who will be most affected by these revisions, and to those who have expressed their concerns about the project during past meetings. These revised plans will provide you with updated information for the proposed Albright Office Park development. Joanne Bosomworth 303 Willow Hill Court 408-866-9262 RECEIVED JUN172013 :YOR & TOWN COUN `, \AINC1IESTER ;s AV M H 9IH (' 2.. 417'7) 02. 233 a• c2- o 0 • .� :2u;■. z . : \ � —> 2 4NL Z�y w _ r ,; Cr) 0 / • ;m • • ▪ • tn v ACCESS DRIVE! AND PARKING 1 . CO3 5 0. tu CL a) 0 0 0) From: Jennifer Croft Grewal [mailto:jennifer@Arewals.orq] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 10:55 AM To: BSpector; Steve Leonardis; Diane McNutt; Joe Pirzynski; Marcia Jensen; Council Cc: Jessy Pu Subject: Re: Albright Development requesting an answer to my June 4 email and additional request Town Council Members, I sent the below email on June 4 questioning the safety analysis of the proposed KEEP CLEAR at Charter Oaks Drive that was made a part of the motion on the approval of the Albright Way project. I have not received an answer as to why Jessy Pu informed the Board of Directors of Charter Oaks Townhouse Association this was a safety risk when it was requested more than a year ago. I was the Vice President of the BOD when this request was made and continue in that role. I would specifically request that the motion amended to have the intersection of Charter Oaks Drive and Lark Avenue studied for traffic after the school year starts again. I would like it analyzed at that time if a KEEP CLEAR is safe or if is more appropriate to install a traffic signal. We have continuously been told there is not enough space between Charter Oaks Drive and University to warrant a signal. However, please see the maps and distances below for the traffic signals on Lark. The distance from Charter Oaks Drive to University is greater than any other. If is deemed more safe to have a signal at this intersection by professional traffic planners I want this to be required of the developer. • Lark Avenue to Winchester @ Lark is 367 feet. • Garden Hill Drive to Oka @ Lark is 341 feet. • Charter Oaks Drive to University @ Lark is 417 feet. (it's more distance than any!) Jennifer Grewal 103 Walnut Hill Court, Los Gatos 95032 Jenrefer t ralr Grewal lennijer'dt grewals. org 403-3 5-3333',wh,le 408-384-5100 eFax On Jun 4, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Jennifer Croft Grewal wrote: Town Council Members, I am writing to express my disappointment with the outcome of last night's meeting. While I expected some sort of compromise to be granted above the 35'/350K where it landed cannot be called anything other than a failure to compromise. I would like to thank Vice Mayor Steve Leonardis for standing up for a better way via his no vote on this motion. I do not know if Jessy Pu was in attendance at last night's meeting, but have copied him on this communication due to the motion including the KEEP CLEAR painting at the intersection of Charter Oaks and Lark. As a member of the BOD at COTA I can attest to the fact that we asked for the town to do this on numerous occasions. Mr. Pu informed us it was a safety issue due to cars on the interior lane being blind to a car corning out of Charter Oaks if the outside lane was backed -up. I was questioned about this when I spoke at the Planning Commission meeting and had just had that exact experience. If Mr. Pu was in attendance last night I do not understand why he did not speak up about this. If we were told this by Mr. Pu how will the Town justify the KEEP CLEAR at Lark/Charter Oaks Drive when the first major accident is caused as a result? Separately, in my meeting with John Shenk he and I discussed getting in/out of COTA. He said that he had been researchign other options for the lights at the Charter Oaks Drive/University area of Lark that he thought may be better options for traffic flow. He said he was going to talk with the Town about these possibilities. Additionally, he discussed the possibility of giving COTA a 'gate' by which only COTA residents could have access to get out via his development. This involved easements for COTA, some sort of checking on his traffic study to see if going out negated its findings. He never got back to me about this as he said he would. A reduction in the overall size of this project by a mere 13% is not compromise. The developer bought a piece of land knowing that what he wanted was not within the guidelines of the Town. He bought the property anyway and then got what he wanted with no one watching out for those of us living on this end of Town or for the overall impact of the many developments needing to use the Winchester/Lark/LGBIvd corridor. Separately, this small compromise on size will do nothing to help with the traffic issues when the other properties in town are fully developed. To my knowledge there is no comprehensive traffic study to look at the overall impact of these developments on traffic. Regards, Jennifer Croft Grewal Charter Oaks Owner Vice President COTA BOD Jennifer Croft Grewal 408-375-3333 mobile 408-384-5100 eFax jennsfer jcanderson.com On Jun 3. 2013, at 4: I 0 PM, Jennifer Croft Grewal wrote: Town Council Members, While I realize I am probably a day late and a dollar short getting this note out to you with regard to the Albright development it is still worth hitting the send button just in case! I am not feeling well today so, unfortunately, will be unable to attend the meeting to show support for sending this development back to Planning Commission to be rethought by the developer. I attended the last Town meeting, as well as the Planning Commission meeting, where the Albright way project was the main focus. I spoke at both meetings and again ask your vote to send this back to Planning for a reduction in the scope of the development to match our town's General Plan. • There were many comments made as to the financial benefit that $1.4M would provide to the schools - this would only add about $100/student if it makes it to the schools at all and if the project is fully built out. As the developer said himself at the Planning Commission meeting - if the environment doesnt warrent a full build out he will stop building. Additionally, I would like to respectfully point out that our Town's charter states that land use decisions cannot be made on the basis of financial impact. • At the Town Council meeting two weeks ago there were approximately 74 speakers. Approximately 32 spoke for a reduction in scope and sticking with current Town Plan standards and about 42 spoke in favor of the poject as it now stands. Of the 42 or so that spoke in favor of hte project I would like to point out that about 22 of those speakers worked for Netflix, in commercial real estate, in business supported groups (SV Leadership Group, Chamber of Commerce) or were business owners. All of these groups stand to personally gain financially from the project. • Attached is a petition from our time at the Farmers Market from those in favor of a reduced capacity for this project. I would like to point out that the 'pro' petition that had almsot 500 signatures did not tell people the truty in its entirity. Signers were asked if they wanted $1.4M to go to school funding. There was no alternative spoken about that a smaller project would still driect funds to the schools that is substantial or that the project may never fully develop or that the monies could stay at an administrative level. • The EIR states that 350K of office space is what is best for the environment - that was a court ordered report and the developer never contested its findings. I hope this influences your decision. • There is no VTA funding at this point, nor is there a guarantee of any funding. The small projected ridership alone does not have the project make financial sense to extend. The 65' buildings are not compatible with the surrounding buildings. I own my home in Charter Oaks. For 13 years we have felt like a residential community, we bought a residential community. We should not be forced to live next to a high rise. The current developmets have to be approved with the constraints of previous decisions made by the Town. Charter Oaks was allowed to be built and other developments must take that into account for their future developments. The developer never put up a realistic example of the size of the buildings. The Cherry Pickers are completely inadequate. Please see the attached photos from my bedroom window and back patio. The Cherry Picker is barely visable (can you even find it), but a building along that entire line of view will probably be massive. How can anyone tell from this visual? Thank you - hopefully you will be making a decision tonight to support the current Town Plan. I do know this has been a big issue and you have put a lot of time into whatever decision you come to and appreciate your time to hear the Town's residents speak their concerns. Regards, Jennifer Grewal 103 Walnut Hill Court, Los Gatos 408-379-5595, 408-375-3333 c <DSC03279.jpeg> <DSC03281.jpeg> <FAX 20130603 1370300772_1.pdf> ,k'lll?1tcr i KOfi Cire al JE nnit'r 11 grel i als. of g IO -3 -333 3 mobile 408-384-5100 eFax • AASmrhhc C.r. rvwrtt • Ca11.+c i n Center jt. ve To see all the details that are visible on the screen, use the "Print" link next to the map. Laura Peter scn LT, rr. 'a�t'r Map data C2013 Cybercity. Googte - Driving directions to Lark Ave & Charter Oaks Dr, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Lark Ave & University Ave Los Gatos, CA 1. Head southeast on Lark Ave toward Charter Oaks Dr 2. Turn left onto Charter Oaks Dr () Lark Ave & Charter Oaks Dr i Los Gatos. CA 95032 'do,Iya 384 ft 33 ft These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction projects. traffic, weather. or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map results, and you should plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or notices regarding your route. Map data ©2013 Cybercity. Grogle Go: sic Driving directions to Lark Ave Lark Ave & Garden Hill Dr Los Gatos, CA 95032 1. Head northwest on Lark Ave toward Oka Rd Lark Ave To see all the details that are visible on the screen. use the 'Print' link next to the map. I. l !;I:00 Map data 02013 Cybercity. Google - 341 ft These duecbens are for planning purposes only. You may rind that construction c-cects. traffic. weather. or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map results. and you should plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or notices regarding your rot.te Map data s'2013 Cyhere:1y. Google Go L sic To see all the details that are visible on the screen, use the "Print" link next to the map. f tlr.; Lcdg� • c, 2• CL :r ra.e,..efi ;v.: WIrrh•;:.,r Map data 02013 Cybercity, Google - Driving directions to Lark Ave & University Ave, Los Gatos, CA Lark Ave 1. Head east on Lark Ave toward University Ave 367 ft Lark Ave & University Ave Los Gatos, CA These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction projects, traffic. weather, or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map results, and you should plan your route accordingly_ You must obey all signs or notices regarding your route. Map data a2013 Cybercity, Google This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: Jennifer Croft Grewal [mailto:jennifer©drewals.orq] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 11:12 AM To: BSpector; Steve Leonardis; Diane McNutt; Joe Pirzynski; Marcia Jensen; Council Cc: Jessy Pu Subject: Fwd: Albright Development - requesting an answer to my June 4 email and additional request One additional piece of information to add to my request for the signal consideration at Lark/Charter Oaks Drive. Below is my talk from the 4/24 Planning Commission Meeting. I would like to know what traffic plans are being put in place to address the issues I raised. Separately, I was questioned by the commission about whether a KEEP CLEAR would help on Lark at COD. I said no because I had almost been hit when a person stopped in the outside lane to let me through and another car jumped out into the next lane - had I not been paying attention I would have been hit. • There are times I drop my kids of at the JCC on Oka for soccer and then run errands while they are training. • Currently traffic gets so backed up between 4-4:30 it can take 3 or more traffic lights before I am able to make it through the left turn at Oka from COD. This is only a few hundred yards. • The State is accountable for the lights at Oka and both 17 exchanges and the Town is responsible for the other 3 lights on Lark. There have been sync issues between the two systems in the years I have lived here, which cause more traffic issues. • The merge between 17/Lark/Oka Road is a nightmare around 4:15 pm. • The overpass coming down onto Lark allows drivers to pick up speed so those heading toward Winchester are in excess of the speed limit. • The intersection of COD/Lark has a blind spot from the bridge railing making it difficult to see oncoming cars to safely make the turn off of COD. • The new University Avenue Light backs up with cars not leaving the COD access out. • The carwash often has cars backed out onto Lark causing delays in the right turn onto LGBlvd. • The right turn onto LGBlvd. Is backed up at rush hour. • LGBlvd turning onto Lark can take 2-3 lights during morning and afternoon commute times to get through. JENNIFER GREWAL PRESENTATION FROM APRIL 24 Planning Commission Meeting: My name is Jennifer Grewal. My husband and I have lived in the Charter Oaks community since 2000. We have 3 boys, all at Blossom Hill. For the past 5 years I have served as the Vice President of the Charter Oaks BOD. The COTA BOD is in agreement that the scope of this project needs to be reduced for traffic reasons and for visual impact reasons, especially given that our community is in the shadow of the proposed development. Tonight my concern is traffic. COTA is one of several neighborhoods whose only access in/out is Lark Avenue. COTA spoke to the Town about our traffic concerns when the current Netflix/Avantino complex went in. We were ignored. Traffic got so bad after the original Netflix development reached capacity that the COTA BOD brought our own solution to the Town. We asked to turn a left turn lane into a merge lane for COD benefit. The council granted this small change. That change has been a pressure release, not a fix. With this proposed development there will estimated 3000 or more additional cars on Lark. There are numerous other developments in the works that will need to use the Lark corridor adding more cars. Lark has every traffic issue a one -mile road could have. There are times I drop my kids of at the JCC on Oka for soccer and then run errands while they are training. Currently traffic gets so backed up between 4-4:30 it can take 3 or more traffic lights before I am able to make it through the left turn at Oka from COD. This is only a few hundred yards. The State is accountable for the lights at Oka and both 17 exchanges and the Town is responsible for the other 3 lights on Lark. There have been sync issues between the two systems in the years I have lived here, which cause more traffic issues. The merge between 17/Lark/Oka Road is a nightmare around 4:15 pm. The overpass coming down onto Lark allows drivers to pick up speed so those heading toward Winchester are in excess of the speed limit. The intersection of COD/Lark has a blind spot from the bridge railing making it difficult to see oncoming cars to safely make the turn off of COD. The new University Avenue Light backs up with cars not leaving the COD access out. The carwash often has cars backed out onto Lark causing delays in the right turn onto LGBIvd. The right turn onto LGBIvd. Is backed up at rush hour. LGBIvd turning onto Lark can take 2-3 lights during morning and afternoon commute times to get through. We want LG to flourish, we support development, but need you to do your jobs and make sure that our Town is not complete gridlock and a horrible place to live because of traffic. Right now, is as though the Town has abdicated its responsibilities to the citizens they are supposed to serve and allowed the developers to have their wish list fulfilled. Please do your jobs and oversee development, make sure it is done in alignment with the current standards we have. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get through this and have less gridlock rather than more. Manage our town flow, manage our traffic, manage our neighborhoods. Jennifer Croft Grewal jennifer(a�grewals. org 408-375-3333 mobile 408-384-5100 eFax Jennifer Croft Grewal jennifer cQgrewals. orq 408-375-3333 mobile 408-384-5100 eFax This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: John Shepardson [mailto:shepardsonlaw©me.com] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 12:26 PM To: BSpector; Steve Leonardis; Diane McNutt; Joe Pirzynski; Marcia Jensen; Council Subject: Albright (Value of Easements) Dear Mayor Spector and Council: One, I'm concerned about the Town transferring away easement rights without receiving any compensation for them. Two, they either have monetary value or not. Three, if they are worthless, then the transfer is harmless. Four, if they have value, the transfer may still be harmless, if the value is minor. Five, if they have significant value, then there would be harm to the Town, and its taxpayers. Six, apparently the Staff has determined they are of little or no value. Seven, is the Staff qualified to make a valuation determination? Has an appraisal been performed? Eight, if the easements cover 2.7 acres, and the land was purchased at 2.5M per acre, this totals to 6.75M. Nine, I have spoken with appraiser John Hibberd (408) 261-4300 (recommended by Kelly Appraisal Services here in Town), and he's indicated to me in situations like that the parties often split the difference between the value to the buyer and the value to the seller. Thus, even if the value to the Town is zero, the easements may be worth significant value because they appear to have great value to the developer. Thus, a fair value for the easements maybe 3.375M. Ten, the Staff recommended the developer's 550K proposal (and rejected the EIR best of 350K) based on feasibility requirements (ROI, height of buildings, amount of square footage) which appear to have been inaccurate. Given these facts,and the lack an appraisal or consult with an appraiser, it appears to be too great of financial risk to accept the Staffs present finding that the easements have little or no value. Let's make sure, and let's get it right. If this requires a reconsideration of the 6/3/13, despite pressure to Eleven, it was my impression from Mr. Rohani's comments that the issue of easements transfer would take place after the vote on 6i3/13, and was not part of the decision. However, in speaking with Joel recently, I was inforied that the transfer was included with the vote. This is concerning since it appears that more discussion would have taken place on the issue on 6/3/13 if the Council and public were informed the matter was subject to the vote. In sum, in these times of particular concern for fiscal responsibility, I would not want to, without due diligence, somewhat "blindly" transfer an asset that may have significant value. It's one thing to compromise and negotiate knowing what you are giving up. It's another thing to give up something of value, that you did not know was being given up. I would not want to see the Town face litigation over this issue if it turns out a significant asset was transferred without adequate compensation. We also must be cognizant of Sand Hill Properties and Mr. Pau's history of "onerous" litigation in our neighboring City of Suinlu<ale, and yet not intimidated by it. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours truly, John Shepardson:) JOHN A. SHEPARDSON, ESQ. 59 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite Q Los Gatos, CA 95030 T: (408) 395-3701 F: (408) 395-0112 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: the information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is confidential information that may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or if you received this message in error, then any direct or indirect disclosure, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify Marti H. Castillo at the Law Office of JOHN A. SHEPARDSON immediately by calling (408) 395-3701 and by sending a return e-mail; delete this message; and destroy all copies, including attachments. Thank you. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with new requirements of the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that, to the extent any advice relating to a Federal tax issue is contained in this communication, including in any attachments, it was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (a) avoiding any tax related penalties that may be imposed on you or any other person under the Internal Revenue Code, or (b) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed in this communication. This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: Robert Schwimmer [mailto:bobn3faw@sbcalobal.net] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:31 PM To: 'John Shepardson'; 'Erbst Butch'; erconn0r©yahoo.com; 'Larry Arzie'; 'Cecil Anison'; 'Pat Bortle'; 'Barbara Dodson'; 'Eileen McGee'; 'Janet Ehrhardt'; 'Mary Kairis'; 'Kathleen Schneider'; 'Renee McLaughlin'; 'Jennifer Croft Grewal'; Tony Aghazarian; Anne4PT'aaol.com Cc: Council Subject: RE: Albright After exiting San Tomas to Winchester Friday at about 6pm, I'm more concerned about Traffic. About 35 minutes to Lark Ave, with no apparent special event having caused it... It's only the beginning of looming increasing density, with more developments down the pike. As stated and restated, Albright will become the pattern. What's really maddening, is that, ok, Netflix was the driving basis to achieve the developers' hype to sell, but the size seems to be far in excess of Netflix's seeming 10-year projected requirements. So the real intent is to assure the developers of plenty of rental profits, to Los Gatos Citizens' detriment. What was wrong with our Town living within its means. Nothing new about business owners always wanting more. What part of No was beyond the ken. There was due consideration for our residents' concerns for vista and other detriments, but I believe Traffic effects were largely ignored. "All big cities have traffic delays." That's why we're in Los Gatos. And are willing to pay for it. Bob ----Original Message From: John Shepardson imailto:sheoardsonlaw@me.com] Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 9:22 PM To: Robert Schwimmer; Erbst Butch; erconnor rQ, yahoo.com; Larry Arzie; Cecil Anison; Pat Bortle; Barbara Dodson; Eileen McGee; Janet Ehrhardt; Mary Kairis; Kathleen Schneider; Renee McLaughlin Subject: Albright What do u think of result? Sent from my iPhone Tlzis Page Intentionally Left Blank 1 I