The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 06BBuchalter January 3, 2018 VIA E-MAIL (JARMER@LOSGATOSCA.GOV) & FEDEX Ms. Jennifer Armer Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Phone: (408) 354-6872 Email: jarmer@losgatosca.gov 55 Second Street Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94105 415.227.0900 Phone 415.227.0770 Fax File Number L4342-0002 415.227.3508 Direct aguerratJhuchalter.com Re: January 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting — Responses to Commission Comments from December 13, 2017 Meeting for 401-409 Alberto Way Architecture and Site Application S-15-056; Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 APN 529-23-018 As you know, Buchalter represents LP Acquisitions, the developer of the project located at 401- 409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos. At its meeting of December 13, 2017, the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission offered comments and raised questions regarding the Architecture and Site Application S- 15-056, Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009, and Environmental Impact Report EIR-16-001 for the 401-409 Alberto Way Project (the "Alberto Way Project"). All of the comments that the Planning Commission received at its December 13, 2017 meeting are the same comments that the commenters submitted in August 2016, March 2017, April 2017, May 2017, September 2017 and October 2017 for the 91,965 square foot building (Original Project) and the 83,000 square foot building ("Second Redesign") and the modifications to the Second Redesign presented to the Town Council at its meeting in September, 2017 ("Second Redesign"). The attached matrix summarizes the responses to all of the prior comments and includes responses specific to the 74,260 square foot building ("Third Redesign") presented to the Planning Commission (See Exhibit A). The project team addressed these comments in multiple submittals to the Planning Commission and Town Council as summarized below and contained in the September 27, 2017 submittal to Jennifer Armer for consideration at the Los Gatos Town Council (See Exhibit B). Additionally, this letter responds to the following specific comments for which the Commission requested written responses at the conclusion of its meeting on December l 3t: buchalter.corn Los Angeles Napa Valley Orange County Sacramento San Francisco Scottsdale BN 31665449v1 Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer January 3, 2018 Page 2 • Provide width, length, and area of land being dedicated to the Town for street widening; • Construction management plan — additional details beyond the information provided in the project letter submitted November 7th; • Explain what makes office space "Class A" office space; • Provide details of the TDM Program, specific to the CAT shuttle that could be included as a condition of approval; • Describe possible options to work toward a single level of underground parking, or a clear explanation as to why a single level is not feasible; and • Clarify how much square footage would be dedicated and included as part of Alberto Way and explain whether an emergency vehicle will be able to drive down the street. Alberto Way Dedication The Planning Commission requested information regarding the width, length, and area of land being dedicated to the Town for street widening. In particular, the Commission requested this information in order to understand the future road width and emergency access during construction (clarify when in the construction timeline the new sidewalks and road widening would actually occur, since it may not be until the end of construction). Response — According to Kier & Wright, the Project engineer, LP Acquisitions is dedicating approximately 355 feet of the Property to the Town for additional right-of-way. This length begins at the property's boundary near the intersection of Saratoga — Los Gatos Road and Alberto Way and continues east along the Project's frontage. The width of the dedicated frontage begins at approximately 2.8' and widens to 3.1' along the curve (about 325' east of Saratoga — Los Gatos Road) and eventually tapers back to the original property line. The total area of the land being dedicated is approximately 978 square feet. The offsite work is scheduled to begin at the same time as the Core & Shell building construction and the estimated timeline for completion is concurrent with the Core & Shell's construction schedule. This work is estimated to start 6.75 months from the beginning of construction and should be completed 12.75 to 14 months after the project's start date. Alberto Way's sidewalk along the project's frontage will be closed during construction and all pedestrian traffic will be relocated to the other side of the street. Alberto Way will remain open during the duration of the project for emergency vehicle access. Construction Manaiement Plan The Planning Commission requested additional details beyond the information provided in the project letter submitted on November 7, 2017 regarding the construction management plan. The Commission also asked for potential measures that could be conditions of approval to help neighbors be more comfortable with excavation and dewatering and impact to through traffic on Alberto Way. The Commission requested a map showing locations on site for different storage/offloading locations. BN 31665449v1 Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer January 3, 2018 Page 3 Response — Information regarding the conceptual construction management plan was summarized in the September 27, 2017 submittal to the Town Council and identified in the matrix in Exhibit A. The attached Preliminary Construction Diagram contained in Exhibit C depicts the proposed construction traffic management plan. The Town's process requires that a Construction Management Plan be submitted and approved during the construction process, not during the planning approval process. Nonetheless, in response to the neighbors and Planning Commission's questions, LP Acquisitions would coordinate the construction process so as to not impact through traffic on Alberto Way as well as emergency vehicles. LP Acquisitions has indicated on numerous occasions that no off -haul excavation would occur during the AM or PM peak hour traffic periods between 7-9am and 4-6pm. Additionally, the proposed Third Redesign allows for all construction vehicles to be staged on -site. Class "A" Office Space Criteria The Planning Commission requested additional information regarding what makes office space Class "A"' office space, and explain why the minimum for a Class "A" office building just happens to be 74,260 square feet, the EIR's recommended size for the Reduced Scale Alternative as described on page S-8 of the Draft EIR. Class "A" Office definition by 42 Floors: Class A buildings are coveted, highly sought spaces of significant size, usually in a central location. In a central business district, this could mean 250,000 square feet or more of office space; in a suburban location or smaller metropolitan area, a 50,000 square foot building Wight qualify. These prestigious buildings compete for premier office tenants. They have high occupancy rates and often will house only a handful of notable companies. Size and location are only part of the equation, however; Class A buildings possess top-notch qualities that demand higher rents, like superior infrastructure, state-of-the-art technology capabilities, high-tech security, and the latest in elevator and HVAC systems. Amenities abound for tenants of a Class A building. Concierge and outstanding security services are standard. A Class A building may have an indoor atrium featuring abundant greenery and a soothing water feature. Another may have a food court with cafes, restaurants, and coffee shops for workday breaks. Mail collection and copying services are often in-house, providing a valued convenience. On -site parking is another frequent amenity of this building class. Systems and amenities are important, but aesthetics are what really give Class A buildings the "wow" factor. Finishes can be mahogany and imported tile, lobbies are luxuriously appointed with marble and glass, and the whole building exudes professional elegance. Overall architectural design also tends to be notable in Class A structures, employing the latest technology for benchmark -setting efficiency. Arresting architecture draws attention and brands the building as an image -defining office structure. Class A buildings aren't always new buildings --renowned structures with stellar ownership in prime neighborhoods are often Class A buildings due to market presence. They compete with other prestigious buildings for the same kind of discerning, image -conscious client. See https:/r421`Poors.comledu/b and the basics/determining the-class-oi -an- office-building. BN 31665449v1 Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer January 3, 2018 Page 4 Response — The revised Project at 74,260 square feet with the reduction in the footprint in the subsurface parking garage is feasible, as explained in my client's November 7`" letter. As LP Acquisitions has indicated on numerous occasions, a key project objective is to build a Class "A" office building in the Los Gatos market. We outlined the specific factors that are critical to the development of a Class "A" office building in this market sector in prior letters to the Commission and the Town Council (see e.g., attached Letter to Mayor Sayoc dated September 27, 2017) . An even smaller office building surrounded by more surface parking in order to compensate for the loss of a floor of underground parking would mean that the building's developer would be unable to provide secured parking for its tenants and unable to accommodate the types of building populations, amenities and features that are common and expected in a Class "A" office building. In addition, the cost per square foot would substantially increase to accommodate the requested revisions, making the project economically infeasible as described in the Applicant's Letter dated November 7, 2017 on file with the Town of Los Gatos Planning Department and incorporated by reference. Today's office and high technology tenants that lease Class "A" office buildings do so with the understanding that the individual floor plate sizing will accommodate the requisite number of open office cubicles, private offices, conference rooms and amenity spaces for an efficient workspace, with the proper level of office population and interaction per floor required in a modern high technology work environment. Please see the attached letters from Gregg von Thaden, Avison Young, and also Justin M. Riley, Colliers International, both brokers who have extensive experience leasing Class "A" office buildings throughout Silicon Valley, contained in Exhibit D. As Mr. von Thaden and Mr. Riley both state, more than 95% of developed Class "A" office space provides larger floor plates ranging from 35,000 to 40,000 square feet. As has been demonstrated by the millions of square feet of recent low and midrise office space constructed throughout Silicon Valley and beyond, floor plates smaller than 37,000 square feet are not capable of properly accommodating the aforementioned needs of today's modern office and/or high technology tenants. Any further reduction in floor plate size will result in a building that is untenable from both economic cost of construction and leasing marketability standpoints. High technology tenants demand large, open floor plates, capable of supporting amenity areas that are separate from the traditional work (cubicle and office) spaces for informal break-out and collaboration areas that foster team interaction and brainstorming as stated in Mr. von Thaden's letter. Please refer to the attached 11x17 floor plans of +/-37,000 square foot floor plates for other, recent developer projects/buildings in Silicon Valley illustrating layouts that exemplify the above description of a modern, efficient, high technology workspace with the requisite amenity areas demanded by today's Class `A' tenants. We have also provided some photos of these work environments to further support the need for floor plates no smaller than 37,000 square feet (see Exhibit D). TDM Program —CAT Shuttle Details The Planning Commission asked that the Applicant provide details of the CAT shuttle — (vehicle size, service hours, general route, number of special events, etc.) that could be included as a condition of approval if the Project were approved. BN 31665449v1 Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armor January 3, 2018 Page 5 Response LP Acquisitions is committed to implementing measures to reduce the Project's carbon footprint whether it involves providing a shuttle, designating carpool parldng stalls with charging stations for 24 clean air vehicles, 36 bicycle stalls or a pedestrian/bicycle/ride-share program. The CAT ("Community Area Transit") is a 28-passenger shuttle that will make a continuous loop (every 30minutes), free of charge for tenants, neighbors, and residents to use Monday through Friday, from 10:30am until 3:30pin; and for a few special events in Los Gatos each year. As part of the Applicant's commitment to innovation and creativity, LP Acquisitions provided the following demonstrations of the free downtown Los Gatos shuttle service on the following dates and times: 1. August 12-13, 2017 (Fiesta de Artes); Saturday: 9:30am to 9:30pm. Sunday: 8:30am to 5:30pm 2. August 25-26, 2017 (Annual Summer Sidewalk Sale); Friday and Saturday: 10:30am to 3:30pm 3. September 14-15, 2017: Thursday and Friday: 10:30am to 3:30pm. Ridership during all three demonstrations was solid and many of the riders were residents, working professionals, and some visitors from out of town. Approximately 40 of the Alberto Way neighbors rode the shuttle during the Fiesta de Artes event. During the September demonstration, LP Acquisitions had over 70 students ride the shuttle. Most of the students were 9th graders who have yet to obtain their driver's licenses. The majority of the students visited downtown food retailers after school, while their parents were able to avoid after -school traffic. Bob Mistele and Kristi Grasty at the Los Gatos Unified School District were instrumental in advising the students and their parents about the shuttle. Downtown businesses offered positive feedback regarding the benefit of the shuttle to bringing potentially over 300 new customers to downtown every day while minimizing traffic or parking impacts. During the free shuttle demonstrations, some of the downtown merchants informed LP Acquisitions that their business revenues increased during the demonstration. The demonstration rides indicate that the CAT will enable building occupants and residents in the area to visit downtown for lunch or shopping without adversely affecting downtown traffic or the limited supply of parking spaces. Please see attached Shuttle Information Sheet and Shuttle Stops Map in Exhibit E. Hexagon previously submitted an analysis of the effectiveness of the CAT shuttle as a TDM measure as further discussed in Exhibit E. We also previously submitted the proposed language to be added to Condition of Approval #103 which proposed operational details of the CAT shuttle. The revised Condition of Approval #103 provides: Applicant/Developer2 hereby agrees and acknowledges that it shall provide (i) lessees of the project, (ii) senior citizens, neighbors and community members, (iii) all Los Gatos students (including the Los Gatos High students), and (iv) visitors to the Town (collectively, the "Community Beneficiaries") with access to, and use of, a shuttle service (hereinafter the "Shuttle 2 This condition may apply to the building tenant irate Tenant desires to control the CAT operations, in which case the operational details of this condition will be reflected in the lease terms. For purposes of this condition, "Applicant/Developer" shall refer to "Tenant" under such circumstances. BN 31665449v1 Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer January 3, 2018 Page 6 Service"), which Shuttle Service shall transport the Community Beneficiaries to and from the project and certain locations within the Town (which locations are more particularly shown on the map attached hereto). Applicant/Developer shall provide the Shuttle Service to the Community Beneficiaries, free of charge, Monday through Friday, from 10:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m., and for three (3) one -day public events chosen by the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce with input from the Town Manager. Applicant/Developer may, but shall not be obligated to provide the Shuttle Service to the Community Beneficiaries for additional events not expressly stated in the preceding sentence. The Applicant's/Developer's obligation to provide the Shuttle Service to the Community Beneficiaries shall be binding upon the Applicant/Developer and its respective successors and assigns, and may be amended, supplemented, terminated or modified only by an instrument in writing executedby the Applicant/Developer (or its successors and assigns) and the Town. The Applicant's/Developer's obligation to provide the Shuttle Service to the Community Beneficiaries shall be binding upon the Applicant/Developer and its respective successors and assigns, and may be amended, supplemented, terminated or modified only by an instrument in writing executed by the Applicant/Developer (or its successors and assigns) and the Town. Size of the Underground Parking Garage The Commission requested that the Applicant describe possible options for a single level of underground parking, or to provide a clear reasoning as to why a single level is not feasible. Response We previously submitted extensive information regarding the underground garage as shown in Exhibit A. Further reductions in the size of the building to 56,000 square feet or less than 62,000 square feet as requested by the commenters are not feasible as a result of a desire to reduce the parking garage to a single level. Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." As we previously stated, the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of on -site alternatives include site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, and jurisdictional boundaries. Reducing the building by another 10,000 square feet or more would not significantly reduce the less -than -significant impacts of the 74,260 square foot building because the Third Redesign already reduces the impacts to the residents along the northern property boundary and provides extensive site frontage landscape screening. A single level underground parking garage is not feasible for the 74,260 square foot building. Multiplying 74.260 x 4 = 298 parking spaces required, less 38 surface spaces, yields 260 spaces required in the garage. Four Hundred and Twenty (420) square feet is required per car (based on the current garage layout, including circulation space) which yields a total area of 109,200 square feet for a single level underground parking garage. This area will not fit within the setback lines and even if it did, it would completely eliminate the construction staging area on the front side of the site which was requested by the Town and the neighbors. The podium would occupy the entire underground area and BN 31665449v1 Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer January 3, 2018 Page 7 would still be short by 10,000 square feet. Also, the podium would not allow heavy weighted trucks to park and deliver. In addition, eliminating the new, added amenity areas on the north side of the building and replacing these with additional surface parking is infeasible, as a minimum of 60 feet in width is required for a double row of parking with a center drive aisle (most efficient layout) and only 46 feet in width is available assuming a 5-foot landscape setback at the property line and a 5-foot landscape buffer at the building. Accordingly, providing additional surface parking to offset a reduction in the amount of below - grade parking would not be a feasible option given the site constraints. Furthermore, the Town's motivation for making the garage one level below grade is based primarily on the erroneous claims made by Dr. Geissler that it is impossible to design a below -grade garage that will not leak or flood. As the Project design and engineering plans demonstrated at the Planning Commission meeting of December 13th, and will further demonstrate when LP Acquisitions submits fully engineered plans and calculations for the building permit, these comments are irresponsible and conflict with empirical data for thousands of multi -level subsurface parking garages designed and constructed throughout the world. When the garage is properly designed and engineered, the conditions Dr. Geissler claims will happen will not actually occur, as the Alberto Way project team and other design and engineering teams have designed thousands of underground parking garages below the water table that do not leak, do not flood, and perform as designed (see ENGEO supplemental responses included with prior Town Council staff reports). The design and engineering of this underground parking garage will be no different; it will be properly engineered and waterproofed as explained in our prior submittals such that it will not leak or flood or cause any subsidence of land on any adjacent public or private property, either during its construction when dewatering occurs, or after its completion. As evidence that subsurface garages have been constructed, projects with similar underground parking garages in the local Silicon Valley area include the Netflix Building on Winchester Blvd. in Los Gatos, Stadium TechCenter at 5450 Great America Parkway in Santa Clara, the Sobrato Building currently under construction at 599 Castro Street in Mountain View, and numerous high-rise development projects in Downtown San Jose. ENGEO further confirmed that the Netflix Building A located at 100 Winchester Circle has a parking half -floor under the building pedestal, plus two full floors of parking below. This structure demonstrates that buildings with multiple levels of below grade parking have been built in Los Gatos. Width of Alberto Wav The Planning Commission asked if an emergency vehicle will be able to drive down Alberto Way with the Project roadway improvements to Alberto Way. Response -- Alberto Way will be designed in accordance with Town of Los Gatos standards, and the road will be of sufficient right-of-way width to accommodate emergency vehicle traffic as discussed in the EIR and prior correspondence. BN 31665449v1 Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer January 3, 2018 Page 8 Comments Reaardina Desivn of Parking Garage Dr. Geissler and neighborhood residents continue to suggest that a two -level parking garage would pose safety concerns to the adjacent residences in the neighborhood due to excavation of the building foundation. ENGEO's design -level geotechnical report, response to peer review letter, and supplemental response letters contained in the Draft EIR and the Applicant's prior submittals as identified in Exhibit A were all signed and stamped by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer. In California, experts practicing in geotechnical engineering obtain additional licensure beyond the professional civil engineering registration. A registered Geotechnical Engineer (GE) is a professional who demonstrates a minimum of four years of qualifying soils experience beyond what is required for licensure as a civil engineer. Moreover, a GE needs to be recommended by at least four professional engineers and passes an additional examination on geotechnical engineering before becoming registered A GE is recognized by the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists as a professional who demonstrates a higher level of knowledge and judgment over a Professional Civil Engineer on geotechnical subjects. We are confident that the geotechnical engineers supporting the 401-409 Alberto Way project are knowledgeable on the standard of care in geotechnical engineering within California. We note that Dr. Geissler is not a registered GE in the State of California or anywhere else in the United States based on publicly available information regarding Dr. Geissler's credentials. Moreover, ENGEO's conclusions and recommendations on the proposed development were peer reviewed by Mr. Robert Wright, Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG) and Mr. Christopher Coutu, Geotechnical Engineer (GE), two highly reputable practitioners with AMEC, who have worked on and reviewed many large public projects in the Bay Area including in the Town of Los Gatos. The Town of Los Gatos Public Works Department reviewed and accepted the conclusions of ENGEO and the Town's peer review consultants and considered those reports in determining appropriate conditions of approval for the Project. Certain members of the Planning Commission also raised questions about the need for post - construction monitoring. The primary concern of the Town and various public commenters is that dewatering during construction of the proposed below grade parking structure could cause settlement and foundation distress to offsite properties. Based on ENGEO's experience with dewatering projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, periodic monitoring of established survey monuments and groundwater wells during construction are typical measures employed to assess the potential for dewatering-related distress to offsite properties. When dewatering wells are turned off at the completion of construction, groundwater levels will equalize and resume typical seasonal fluctuations. Because the potential mechanism for settlement (i.e. dewatering) would only occur during construction, post -construction monitoring would serve no purpose and is not required as explained at the December 13, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. BN31665449v1 Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer January 3, 2018 Page 9 Conclusion The Third Redesign is consistent with the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines and preserves the small town character of Los Gatos as further discussed in the attachments to this letter. Substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project's environmental impacts will be fully mitigated to a less -than - significant level, and that the Third Redesign is feasible and fully addresses the comments raised by the public and the Planning Commission. We appreciate your consideration of our responses and look forward to the Planning Commission's consideration of the Alberto Way Project in January. Sincerely, BUCHALTER A Professional Corporation By Alicia Guerra AG: sl Exhibits cc (via email): Randy Lamb Shane Arters Jolie Houston Gary Black 011ie Zhou Dan Mitchell Dan Kirby Uri Eliahu, GE Gregory Cubbon, CEG, PE Robert H. Boeche, CEG are 31665449vl This Page Intentionally Left Blank gXRIBIT A 405 Alberto Way (Formerly 401-409) Alberto Way Project Planning Commission Comments and Responses Matrix .January 10, 2018 Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Aesthetics Revised project description (PD) fails to address size & mass of buildings (PLG, 81; revised building is nearly 2 ¶" times scot existing office buildings and should be reduced by If3 to 'A. size and scale not suitable for surrounding neighborhood of mostly senior residents. Please refer toAppiica,rt Response Letter dated August 18, 2016and pages 1-7 of the Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes). Also see Draft ElR Section 3.1 which concluded the projects aesthetic impacts were less than significant. Third Redesign farther reduces Project size to 74,260 sf and results in an almost 20,000 sf reduction compared to the Original Project as discussed in the January 2, 2018 letter from Buchalter. DEIR Section 3.1, page 3-1 I addressed potential impacts of the larger project footprint. The Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016: Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 ( Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes) explains how the impacts were further reduced with project changes and smaller footprint. See the Applicant Letter dated November 7. 2017 regarding the further reduction in the project with the Third Redesign. Revised PD .Allows Tenants to look into Las Casitas windows (PLG, 8) The revised project has relocated the building an. additional 10 feet away from the north property line. thus affording the Las Casitas residents more privacy than did the original design and further minimizing impacts as planted on page 2 of the Applicant Response Letter dates March 17, 2017. In addition. the revised project eliminates the second -floor exterior balcony on the north side of the Building. Generous landscape s.rcening (trees and shrubs) has been added into this new setback area_ further increasing the visible buffer between the two adjacent properties. Further revisions were made in the Third Redesign to preserve Drivacy for residents as explained in the November 7, 2017letter. Applicant Response Letter dated March i-7, 2017 (response to comment I. ii. by Charles Erekson). DEIR page 3-11 addressed potential impacts of the larger project footprint and concluded the impacts were less than significant. The Second and Third Redesigns further reduce the less-than- siguificant impacts. BN 315723210 Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Blocks views of Santa Cruz Mountains (PLG, 8-9) Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell and Matthew Hudesl. The Third Redesign reduces massing and square footage in the northern portion of the building to provide a more expansive view of the Santa Cruz Mor}tains. DEER page 3-10 addressed less -than -significant visual impacts of the original project_ The Applicant Response Letter dated Mardi 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes) described the further reduction in visual impacts associated with the reduced project footprint.. The Third Redesign further reduces impacts to views of the Santa Cruz Mountains as presented at the December 13, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and in the November 7. 2017 letter. Negative aesthetic impacts (contrary to E1R); concerned about glare and shadows and people being able to see into tenants' windows (PLC, 33) The revised project description in the Second and Third Redesigns relocated the building an additional 10 feet away from the north property line, and has eliminated the second story balcony on the north -side of the building, thus affording the Las Casitas residents more privacy than did the previous design. The redesign eliminates shadows on the property to thenorth., except during the extreme winter months when shadows would still he cast by the existing building3 and trees on the current property. Generous landscape screening (trees and shrubs) has been added into this new setback area, further increasing the visible buffer between the two adjacent properties. Glare off the north -facing windows of the new building is not possible as the sun does not strike the nort side of the building. DEER pages 3-10 through 3-13 addressed less- thatn-significant light and glare impacts of the original project. See also Applicant Response Letter dated March 17. 2017 (response to comment 1. ii. by Charles Erekson) and the Applicant Response Letter dated November 7. 2017. Architecture should be in keeping with existing residential neighborhood. and lower building height. etc. The Third Redesign further reduces the scale and massing of the building as shown at the Planning Commission meeting on December 13. 20! 7. Page 3- I 0 through 3-13 of the DEI R addressed less -than -significant visual impacts of the original project. Applicant Response Letter dated August I8. 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes); Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, 2017 and November 7. 2017 regarding Third Redesign. B? 3E5723210 Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Ensure that new development reinforces and supports the special qualities of the Town of Los Gatos (PLG, 47) Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and pages 1-3 of the Applicant Response Letter dated March 17.2017 (Summary of Architectural C ranges and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). The Project incorporated recommendations from the Town's consulting architect, Cannon Design Group, including eliminating tower elements, eliminating the second -floor exterior balcony on the north -side ofthe Building. The design retains its Mission -Style architecture which maintains the small town feel and resembles other nearby commercial developments in Los Gatoz. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes), See Applicant Response Letter dated September 27, 2017 which addressed the Second Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated November 7, 2017 regarding the Third Redesign and how the changes to the project further reduce the size and scale of the building. Air Quality Impacts are understated and mitigations inadequate (PLG, 33-34) • Furnace upgrade does not reduce vehicle ertdoes ns issiComments • Electric vehicle charging systems will not reduce • emissions Restriittg Alberto Way will not reduce congestion • Trip reduction program is voluntary • Inconsistent with 2010 Clean Air Plan • Pollutant concentrations will affect sensitive receptors Please refer to the Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. April 21, 2017 Response to Traffic Comments on.401-409 Afaerto Way Traffic Study ("Hexagon Supplemental Zesponses"), including the Hexagon April 5, 2017 Response to Traffic on 401-409 Al ierto Way Traffic Study a, ("Hexagon April 5 Responses"1. As indicated in the "Overall Traffic Conditions" section of the Hexagon April 5th Responses, the re -striping of southbound Alberto Way at the intersection would improve vehicular flow and reduce queuing on Alberto Way. With respect to TDM measures, please see response to Comment 2 in the Hexagon Supplemental Responses, The T1A analyzed project impacts without taking into account further reductions due to TDM measwes. Nonetheless, TDM is a standard program for reducing vehicular trip generation. Draft pages 3-31 to 3-38 and Conditions of Approval 18-20 address the transportation control measures and air quality mitigation measures that would eliminate potential conflicts with the Clean Air Plan. The Transportation Management Plan (.which includes measures to reduce vehicular trips.) is not voluntary; it is mandatory per Condition 99. All air quality impacts wiF be ,mitigated to a less than significant level; Hexagon Response Letter. 3 SN 3157232lvt Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Water table issues (PLG, 27) See Response to Comments 1-10 to the Geissler DEIR Section 3.5, Geology and Soils and • Water Table is too shallow Letter and Response to Comment 14. including the ENGEO, Inc.. 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, • issues Response to Comment 2 to the Geissler Engineering California, Geotechnical Exploration Report July 17, Rev. 13. • Risk ofLiquefactionFills ExistingPueblo Letter and Alberto Way Citizens, Bob Burke and de Los Gatos Letters in the ENGEO April 19th dated 2015. August 2015, ENGEO Supplemental Response to Public • Boring completed during Supplemental Responses. Also see response to Comments dated April 19, 2017 in Exhibit 1 drought • Possible shifting of Comment lf regarding the borings, (-ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses'!. See the Applicant Response Letter dated foundations due to dewatering September 27, 2017 regarding responses to coffer dam and soil subsidence geotechnical concerns raised before the Town • Underground water diversion Council meeting and the November 7, 2017 for underground parking Letter regarding the design changes in the Third • Bottom of foundation of garage would be 10-12 feet below water table Redesign. Water table has risen See Response to 2C to the Las Casitas Letter in the Section 3.5. Geology and Soils in the Drat) EIR significantly since June, 2015 borings (PLG, 28). No groundwater levels reported in ENGEO April 19'h Supplemental Responses. Also see response to Alberto Way Citizens Comments 11, 2C. 3C. 3D and the response to Geissler Engineering and ENGEO, inc., 401 Alberto Way., Los Gatos, California. Geotechnical Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13. 2015. Boring Bl or B3. Comment 3. ENGEO April 19`' Supplemental Responses. 4 RN 3157^3:1vl Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this mat -He) Hydrology impacts not revealed in EIR (PLG, 29) • Adverse impacts on surrounding properties caused by underground parking • Water table was measured at lowest possible time • Water depth issues • Drought recovery issue • Storm drainage system is overcapacity • Address impacts to sump pumps (also see, BVV 4) ▪ Section 3,8 of the Draft ElR evaluated hydrology and water quality impacts. See Response to Cotnment16 in the A WLC Letter in the ENGEO April 19, 2017 Response to Public Comments. Construction of the parking garage would not result in any new significant geoologic/geotechnical. hydrology or health and safety impacts, • The Project will not burden the existing storm drainage system, because the Project's stormwater will be collected ant conveyed through a storm drain that runs along the western property line, near the Caltrans right of way, along the back of the neighboring parcel. Please see the attached civil drawings prepared by Kier = Wright (Exhibit 2), which specifically reference the upsize from an 8" to 18" storm drain pipe in the adjacent property. The larger pipe is sized to accommodate the flow from a i0-year rain -.vent, which is the largest design rain event that the Town's City standards require pipe itrfrastracture to be designed to. • The two sump pumps that will convey the storm water on this Project are designed to convey the water of a 10-year storm. if the pumps fail. the water will rise in the pump's manhole and will spill into an overflow pipe which ties into the 18' storm drain pipethat drains offsite. Likelihood of flooding due to upstream dam failures. See Response to Comment 1 in the ENGEO April I9* Supplemental Responses. The project site, the neighboring properties, and the majority of the Town of Los Gatos stall located in an inundation zone in the event of dam overflow or failure. Section 3.8.Hydrology and Water Quality in the Draft EIR and ENGEO. Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015. Rev. August 13, 2015; ENGEO April 19'' Supplemental Responses. This issue was addressed for the Second Redesign in the Applicant Response Letter dated Noventber 7, 2017 and for the Third Redesign by ENGEO at the December 13, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and in the January 2, 2018 letter to the Planning Commission regarding additional comments to be addressed prior to the January 10, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Qualit,. in Draft EIR and ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploratior_ Report dated July 17, 2015. Rev. August 13, 2015; ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses HN 315723210 Comments Response to Comment Project Document In which Comment Addressed fin addition to this matrix) Geology and Soils Soil subsidence caused by temporary dewatering during construction See Response to Comment 2 in the ENGEO April 13th Supplemental Responses. The risk of settlement (subsidence) due to temporary dewatering is low for the reasons stated in ENGEO's Response to Comment 2 and as further stated by Uri Eliahu at the December 13, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, Section 3.5, Geology and Soils in the Draft EIR and ENGEO. Inc., 401 Alberto 4Vav, Los Gatos. California_ Geotechnical Exploration Report dated .lady 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015; ENGEO April I9u' Supplemental Responses. 2 story underground garage in an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone See Response to Comment 8 in the ENGEO April 196 Supplemental Responses. The project site is not located within a State of California Fault Rupture Hazard Zone for the reasons stated in ENGEO's Response to Comment 8. Section 3,5, Geology and Soils in the Draft EIR and ENGEO, Inc.. 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos. California, Geotechnical Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015. ENGEO April 19°' Supplemental Responses. See the Applicant Response Letter dated September 27. 2017 for the Second Redesign. 2 story garage identified as an Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazard Zone and combined effect of seismic activity, liquefaction potential make site unsuitable for underground garage land underwater). See Response to Comment 9 in the ENGEO Apri. 19h Supplemental Responses. The effects of liquefaction -induced settlement should be mitigated by designing the foundation in accordance with ENGEO's geotechnical recommendations set forth in its Geotechnical Exploration report. Also see letter from LARGO Concrete, Inc. in Exhibit 3. Section 3.5. Geology and Soi Is in the Draft El R and ENGEO, Inc„ 401 Alberto Way. Los Gatos, California. Geotechnical Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13. 2015. ENGEO April 19``'' Supplemental Responses. Also see the Applicant Response letter dated November 7, 2017 and our supplemental responses provided on January 2, 2018. 6 Bh 315723'21v 1 Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrixl In the event of an earthquake, soils under garage are likely to result in differential foundation settlement with cracking that would allow influx of groundwater ranging from 50 gallons pet minute to 500 gallons per minute. Settlement of 1 inch or more. Settlement near cofferdam. Reduced capacity, of other drainage facilities. See Response to Comments 1 I. and lE and Responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 4, 5, aid 9 in the ENGEO April 9`di Supplemental Responses. The Geotechnical Report recommends criteria for the design of the structural mat foundation to ensure that it is rigid enough to span localized irregularities without suffering from structural damage. The project site has been designed in accordance with Town requirements, including to the overland release generated by a 100-year flood. which will prevent water from entering the building and the underground parking garage. In addition, the Project will drain storm water along the western property line through an 18" storm drain pipe, ,vh ich accommodates a 10- year rain event. Please see the attached civil drawings prepared by Kiser + Wright Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 2693(c), the MR indicates that the Project design has incorporated the ENGEO Geotechnical Report geotechnical recommendations in order to avoid and mitigate potential seismic hazards including measures that are consistentwlth established practice and that will reduce seismic risk to acceptable levels. Section 3.5, Geology and Soils in the Draft ElR and ENGEO, inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos.. California. Geotechnical Exploration Report dated .luly 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 20 15; ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. Long-term dewatering required to discharge groundwater seepage into garage and cracked slabs at houses in Los Gatos Commons, Bella Vista Village, Pueblo de Los Gatos and Las Casitas in vicinity of the garage. See Response to Geissler Comments 2 and 1.5 in the ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. See Applicant Response Lenz dated January 2, 2018 regarding further comments regarding the garage. DEIR Section 3.5, Geology and Soils anc ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California. Geotechnical Exploration Report dated july 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015. ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. 7 FIN 3I572321vI Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Likelihood of flooding due to a Pursuant to Town requirements. the site has been Kier + Wright civil plans on file with the Town of 125-year storm. Certain death designed to handle the overland release generated by Los Gatos for everyone in the garage. a 100-year flood, which will prevent water from Chance of flooding during a entering the building and the underground parking 100-year period is 55%. Public garage. As shown in Exhibit 2. a ridge at the topof safety at risk. the ramp that descends into the parking garage will prevent any site water, including severe storm water and 100-year flood waters. from entering the underground parking garage as the ridge directs the water toward Alberto Way and away from the garage entrance. Likelihood of flooding of garage due to storm water runoffduring Per the Town's Requirements, the storm drain infrastructure on fhe site has been designed to ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California. Geotechnical Exploration Report heavy rains due to inadequate accommodate a 10-year storm and will release to Los dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13. 2015: property drainage. Increase Gatos Creek without affecting the neighboring ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses; see percentage of pervious landscape property. Per the Totwt's requirements. the site also Applicant Response Letter dated January 2. 2018. surface and conduct hydrology has been designed to the overland release a I00-year study of effect on neighboring flood into the To 'ii s right of way to prevent any site properties. EIR fails to address water from entering the neighboring property, and the possible damage to neighboring 100-year flood waters will overland toward Alberto properties. Way. See also, Responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 1-6 and Response to Comment 16 in the ENGEO April 19"' Supplemental Responses. The proposed office building will be supported on a structural mat foundation designed in accordance with the Geotechr.ical Report. which is rigid enough to span localized irregularities without suffering from structural damage. The Cieotechnical Report recommends that waterproofing be conducted by a waterproofing consultant. The construction of the parking garage will not result in any new sigtificant geologic/geotechrucaL. hydrology or health and safety impacts. 8 FIN 315723:1 1 Comments i Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed fin addition to this matrix) Construction of22-foot-deep underground garage may cause diversion of subsurface seepage patterns which would cause a rise in groundwater levels in 1 neighboring property and increased seepage flow rates leading to piping failures. Sce Response to Geissler Engineering Con-unent 4 in the ENGEO April 19`h Supplemental Responses. ENGEO. inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos. California. Geotechnical Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015; ENGEO April 19t Supplemental Responses. Also see Applicant Response Letter dated November 7. 2017 regarding changes reflect in Third Redesign. Proposed dewatering and waterproofing mitigation measures are insufficient to protect adjacent properties. See Responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 4- 6 and Response to Comment 16 in the ENGEO April 19'h Supplemental Responses. The risk of cracking within the foundation mat due to earthquakes or expansive soils and the risk of associated groundwater intrusion are low: therefore, the Project does not require long-term desvatering from a geotechnical stand-+oint. The proper type of waterprooftngwill be determined and specified by a waterproofing consultant per the Geotechnical Report. ENGEO. Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos. California. Geotechnical Exploration Report dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13. 2015: ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses Require that all parking remain above grade and be designed as pervious paving to mitigate risks. As with other parking structures constructed in Los Gatos. any risks associated with the underground parking garage will be addressed by providing proper architectural, structural and civil design that meets all codes and Town requirements. See January 2. 2018 Applicant Response Letter regarding the Netllix subsurface parking garage in Los Gatos. There is no construction plan and no plan can avoid blocking residents and emergency vehicles for extended periods of time (PLG, 27) Conditions 106 through 11 1 require that the developer submit a construction management plan prior to issuance of any permits to commence work, All construction traffic routes and controls are subject to Town review. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Planning Commission testimony. Negative imparts not identified (PLG, 35) _ Draft EJR evaluated potential impacts to public services and determined the impacts would he less than significant. L _ DE1R, Section 3.10, Public Services. BN 31572321v1 Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed tin addition to this matrix) Impact to area schools is not insignificant (PLG, 35) Page 3-140 in Section 3.10 of the Draft EIR explains why the impacts to area schools would be less -than - significant. Draft EIR. Impact to fire and emergency medical services not insignificant (PLG, 36) Page 3-179 in Section 3.11 of the Draft EIR explains why the impacts to fire and emergency services would not be significant. Applicant Response Leiter; Response µ2 to Matthew Hodes Traffic has increased in past 6 months; need new traffic analysis_ See response to Comment 3 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The minimal fluctuation in traffic counts reported in the Hexagon Supplemental Responses did not utter any of the conclusions. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Revised project fails to address VTA funding Hwy 9 & 17 Interchange before Measure B (PLO. 8) See response to Comment 4 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The TIA assumes worst case conditions without interchange improvements. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Revised project fails to address traffic on fiwy 9 and Alberto Way which will become congested (PLG, 161. Per Caltrans. project will add trips greater than 1% capacity; mitigation is required. EIR is inadequate. See response to Comments 5 and 6 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The observed traffic conditions support the assumptions used for the T1A in accordance with Town policy and VTA TI. guidelines. TheTIA acknowledges that the project would add trips equal to 1.18% of capacity to SB SR 17 between Lark Avenue and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. The Project traffic improvements would improve operations compared to existing conditions. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Project wilt increase traffic on See response to Comment 5 in Hexagon Hwy 9, NO traffic on Hwy 17 Supplemental Responses. exiting East Los Gatos will add f to traffic delays. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4 The curve in front of the project See response to Comment 8 in Hexagon is a sight problem for vehicles. Supplemental Responses. Hexagon reconuuends (PLG, 421 eliminating on -street parking along project frontage. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4 10 BN 3157,'321 r1 Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Traffic congestion will impact Alberto Way and LG in a%.mile radius (PLG. 16); need reasonable ingressiegress on Alberto Way (BVV. 3). Section 3,11 Transportation and Traffic address traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed project. Analysis indicates impacts will be less than significant. The Traffic Report considered the vehicle trips of surrounding uses in its analysis. In the 'Overall Traffic Conditions" section of the Hexagon Response Letter indicates that office traffic to the project would mainly flow in the counter -commute direction on eastbound Los Gatos- Saratoga Road, and would turn left into Alberto Way. avoiding adding traffic to the eastbound queue on Los Gatos - Saratoga Rd at Las Gatos Blvd. Final EIR, Response to Comment Letter 7; Hexagon Response Letter dated April 5, 2017. Traffic impacts would be further reduced with development oldie 74,260 sf building under the Third Redesign as explained in the Applicant's Response Letter dated November 7, 2017. Revised PD fails to straighten Alberto for safety & on -street parking (PLG. 15). See Applicant Response #2 to Matthew Hudes in the Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017. The revised PD wail implement the Town's Complete Street Program. The developer has proposed a land dedication along the Alberto Way frontage to facilitate the widening and straightening of Alberto Way by over 5 feet. Tfie revised design moves a majority of the existing curb and gutter into the proposed land dedications as wetl as the excess right of way in order to have a wider and straighter roadway. The street widening will allow for a bike lane and a longer right turn lane onto Los Gatos - Saratoga Road. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated Tvlarch 17. 2017 (Response #2 to lvlatthew Hudes and Response #1, v. to Charles Erekson) ; Applicant Response Letters dated November 7, 2017 and January 2. 2018 regarding Third Redesign. Fire department facilities will be affected by traffic (PLG, 35-371. See response to Comm Nut 1 1 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. One or two fire hydrants would be relocated from back of curb. Emergency response times would not be impacted by the project_ Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4 False Traffic Report data (PLG, 38, 40). See Trip Generation dl: eussion in Hexagon Response Letter dated April 5, 2(4I 7. Hexagon Response Letter dated April 5. 2017. 1l F`N 31572321r! Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Did not consider traffic from 475.485 Alberto Way project Sax Response to Comment 13 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The 475-485 Alberto Way project had not submitted a planning application at the time the 401 Alberto Way Project TIA was prepared. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Trip Generation Sensitivity Study (PLG. 39) See Trip Generation discussion in Hexagon Response Letter dated April 5, 2017, See Response to Comment 14 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The trip generation is based on net building size, not on employment. The proposed building size has decreased compared to the original project as reflected in the Third Redesign_ Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4_ Traffic fee calculation uses 700 additional trips (S615,800 /S879/ additional trip) which under states the fee that would be paid by tenants employing 735 people. (PLG.39) See Response to Comment 14 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The final traffic impact fees will be calculated per the Town's requirements and Project conditions of approval. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. The project could potentially increase hazards due to design features for bikes, pedestrians. and transit (PLG. 40) See Response to Comment 15 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The Project voluntarily proposed to rebuild the sidewalk fronting the Project site along westbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Rd to create a detached sidewalk for additional separation between the vehicles and pedestrians per the Towvn's Complete Streets Program. The Project also widens westbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road to accommodate a bike lane. Currently, Alberto Way does not have bike lanes. but the Project proposes to install bike lanes and a bike box at the intersection of Alberto and Los Gatos -Saratoga to allow bicyclists to tun left safely. Final Ea; Comments 1-3 of Santa Clara VTA Comment Letter #9; Hexagon Response Letter dated April 5, 2017; Applicant Response Letter dated November 7, 2017. MM T1 and T2 cannot be implemented as proposed. Widen Alberto to 12-foot lane width. (PLG. 41) See Response to Comment 16 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The restriping was designed based on input from the Town, Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. 12 9.t- 3157232111 Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which. Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Iv1M T3 creates a new and unacceptable impact on 420 & 435 Alberto Way and fails to widen. Alberto Way in front of project site. (PLG, 411 See Response to Comment 17 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. S' , Response to Matthew Hudes and Response l to Charles Erikson in the Applicant Response Letter dated ? ier& 17, 2017. The revised project widens and straightars Alberto Way by over 5 feet through a proposed land dedication that will allow for greater visibility on Alberto Way, and bike lanes and a longer right turn lane. Applicant Response Letter elated March 17, 2017 (Response 2 to Matthew Nudes); Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4 Applicant Response Letters dated -November 7. 2017 and. January 2, 201 E.. The Revised Project driveway and parking areas are insufficient (PLG, 42) See Respon>e to Comment l S in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The revised site plan is adequate for bus and truck access and circulation. Buses and trucks would not need to enter the garage. Applicant Response Letter; Response #1. iv. to Charles Erikson: Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Project parking should not overflow to street parking on Alberto Way, (BAN, 5) See Response to Comment 19 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Revised Project appears to have no turn -around Iarge enough for buses (PLG. 42). See Response to Comment I 8 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. See response above. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Revised PD Garage is blocked while trash and recycling is picked up. backing up traffic on Alberto & Hwv-9 or in the PDs garagewhile they are present (PLG,42) See Response to Comment 20 in Hexagon Suppleinerttal Responses. Garbage trucks would not block acCCS; to the garage. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. More jobs will create demand for more housing and secondary development. EIR must address all impacts including schools and project should contribute S50K to 70K per tenant employee to mitigate school impacts. The project involves the redevelopment of a corrlmercially zoned property and not a residential project. The project is subject to the commercial developer ilnpact fees imposed by Los Gatos Union School District of S.54/square foot. Draft EIR )3 BN 315723".10 Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) No construction plan can prevent complete shutdown of Alberto Way for extended periods (PLG, 42) Section 3.11 Transportation artd Traffic, and Section 4 Cumulative Impacts address traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed project tincludine access to Alberto Way during construction activities}. Analysis in Draft EiR indicates impacts are less than significant. See Response to Comment 15 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. Final EIR. Response to Comment Letter 05; Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. During construction, work crews of 50-100 will be present on the site at all times, each arriving in a separate vehicle: it is not possible for them to all park on the Project property (PLG, 42) See Response to Comment 22 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27. 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 20 l7 for the Third Redesien and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2013 prepared by Buchalter. As a Mixed -Use development. the PD would, generate high levels of continuous traffic that are not disclosed in the DEiR or FEIR (PLG. 43) Section 2 Project Description describes the proposed use attic site as commercial use and not residential use. See Response to Coimnent 23 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses Final ElR Response 47 to Letter #2. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. FETR MISSING Mitigation T-4: Widen Hwy-9 by one lane along the entire length ofthe Proposed Development on Hwy-9 to allow safe right turns from Alberto Way (PLG. 43) See Response to Comment 24 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. Highway 9 has 2 lanes along the project frontage. The project does not cause the need for further widening of the highway. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-5: Widen Hwy-9 by one lane each direction between the Hwy- I7 Overpass and the 2 lane sections on both sides to enable the EB left turn pocket into Alberto to be extended enough to prevent AM gridlock (PLG, 44) See Response to Cotnnients 24 and 25 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. Highway 9 has 2 lanes along the project frontage. The project does not cause the need for further widening of the highway. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set fOrth in Exhibit 4. 14 RN 3?5723:21tiI Comments Response to Comment Project Document hi which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) FELR MISSING Mitigation T-6: Reduce PD Footprint by enough to enable the widening of Hwy-9 by one lane each direction between the Hwy-17 Overpass and the 2 lane sections on both sides (PLG, 45) Save Response to Comments 24 and 25 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. Highway 9 has 2 lanes along the project frontage. The project does not cause the treed for firther widening of the highway. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. No trip generating project should be approved before Los Gatos Blvd. is widened.(PLG, 26) See Response to Comment 27 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The Project would not cause significant impacts along Los Gatos Blvd. Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. Project sewer crosses neighboring properties. The existing buildings drain the site sewage to a 6' VCP which traverses through the neighboring property. The proposed building for the Project has capped the traversing 6' VCP onsite. and instead is draining the sewage of the proposed building directly into Alberto Way's 6' VCP sewer main, without traversing through a neighboring property. Please see Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 to the matrix previously submired on Sep ember 27. 2017 for the Second Redesign, 15 EN 31572321v1 Comments IResponse to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Alternatives Existing square footage alternative is consistent with project objectives. (PLG 46) Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter slated March 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes). Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes). 1-story garage has negative The undergro.md parking garage is two floors below NIA impacts (PLG 46). grade, not one. The revised design reduces the footprint ofthe underground parking garage, which decreases the required excavation and also allows for on -site staging, of alt construction vehicles, thus eliminating congestion on the street during construction. Furthermore, locating most parking below grade significantly reduces the visual impact of the surface parking lot and allows for additional surface landscaping and amenity areas. Any additional risks associated with the underground parking garage will be 100% mitigated thorough proper architectural_ structural and civil design that meets all codes and Town requirements. Growth -Inducing Impacts CEQA Section 2I100(b)(5) specifies that growth inducing impacts must be addressed in EIR and they were not. (PLG, 36-37) Section 5.1 ofthe Draft EIR contains a discussion of growth inducing impacts. As explained in the Draft EIR the proposed project would not be population - inducing and would be consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the site; therefore the Project would not have growth inducing effects. Draft EIR. No Significant Impacts EIR fails to describe why the possible significant effects were determined not to be significant. (PLG, 37) The EIR describes the reasons that all ofthe impacts that were evaluated in this EIR were determined not to be significsttt. N/A 16 E3N3I57'_32t1,1 Comments Response to Comment i Project Description Revised PD Fails to Address Reviewability (PLG. 7) Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) The project is reviewable in accordance with the Town of Los Oat& Municipal Code and application review procedures _jast like any other development project is reviewable. N/A Revised PD Design features in conflict with General Plan Policies (PLG, 46-49) Refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Chances and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Additional recommendations were made by the Town's consulting architect. Cannon Design Group. and have been incorporated into the Third Redesign submission as discussed above. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016. Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hades); See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Questions validity of Cannon report. References reduction of only 700 sf The 700 sfreduction noted in the Cannon Design Group document i> incorrect The actual reduction in area between the original desig>ta (91.965 sf) and the current proposed design (83,000 sf) is 8,965 sf. Cannon Design Group is the Town's peer review consultant retained by the Town to provide an independenta$sesunent of the Project. See Applicant Response Letters dated Septetnber 27, 20 1 7 for the Second Redesign and November 7.2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Ensure that new development reinforces and supports the special qualities of the Town of Los Gatos (PLG. 47) Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18. 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Recommendations from Cannon Design Group have been incorporated into the redesign. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Nudes); See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, 20i 7 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 201 8 prepared by Buchalter. 17 8N 315723210. Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in audition to thk matrix) Northern portion of buildings should be reduced to 1 story. Buildings block views of mountains. The revised PD has relocated the building an additions. 10 feet away from the north property line_ for a total of 25 feet of setback, including the Town - mandated 15-foot setback. For responses on blocking views, please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Eludes). See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27. 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7. 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2. 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Revised Pia Features in conflict with LG Commercial Design Guidelines (PLG, 47) Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 13, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, Midtael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Additional recommendations made by the Town's consulting architect. Cannon Design Group, have been incorporated into the most recent design submission as discussed above for the Third Redesign. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Swntnary of Architectural Changes and responses to commenis by Thomas O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Hodes). See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27. 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Provide more project review and approval predictability (PLG. 47) The project is reviewable in accordance with the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code and application review procedures just as any development project is reviewable in such a manner. Numerous public meetings, hearings and community workshops have beer conducted by the Town and the applicant as summarized in the April 6, 2017 Planning Commission staff report. N/A. Plan Deficiency (PLG. 47) Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18. 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Somme)! of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell_ Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Also. the Staff analysis contained in the various staff reports prepared for the Project demonstrates that the Project complies with Town plans and policies. N/A 18 BN 3157232I v1 Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (hi addilinn to this matrix) Maintain a building scale that is consistent with the Town's small scale image (PLG, 48) Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 ISummary of Architectural Changes and responses to continents by Thomas O'Donnell, D. irlichael Kane and Matthew Hides). There is no prevalent commercial architecture style in the immediate surrounding area, so the revised project has been redesigned to complement the existing commercial centers_ using mission -style architecture. The Town's Architectural Consultant has approved the proposed architectural style as in accordance with the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines. Reinforce the special qualities of the Town's visual character (PLG, 48) Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016: Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D. Michael Kane and Matthew [Rides). See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7. 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated Marcie 17, 2017 (Surma*, of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D. Michael Kane and Matthew Htdes). Additional recommendations made by the Town's consulting architect. Cannon Design Group, have been incorporated into the most recent design submission as discussed above. The desig incorporatesvcrious design elements from the Hotel Los Gatos and Palo Alto Medical Foundation office building located on Los Gatos Blvd. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architecturat Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Nudes). See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27. 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2. 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Protect property owner investments by discouraging inappropriate adjacent development (PLG, 48 ) Please refer to .Applicant Response Letter dated A,tl;ust 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and MatthewHudes). Additional recommendations made by the Town's consulting architect. Cannon Design Group, have been incorporated into the most recent design submission for die Third Redesign as discussed above. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summar)„, of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes), See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, 201.7 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 2017 For the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared by Buchalter. 19 BN 31572321v1 Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) To encourage signs which are in scale and harmony with the architecture and the character of the Town (PLG. 48) Once a tenant and/or tenants have been identified. the Owner will submit a Master Sigmage Program (MSP) that is consistent and complies with Town requirements for exterior building and site signage. N'A Maintenance ofthe existing small town feel (PLG, 48) Refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016.and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). which indicates that recommendations from Cannon Design Group, have been incorporated into the most recent design submission as discussed above. The Town's Architectural Consultant has approved the proposed style as in accordance with the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27. 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2. 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Careful attention to architectural and landscape details similar to the Town's residential structures (PLG, 48) The architectural details and 'landscape design have been designed in strict compliance with the Town's zoning requirements for the site. The revised design offers a generous landscape amenity area in front of the building, facing onto Alberto Way. Additional recomrnendr.tions made by the Town's consulting architect, Cannon Design Group, have been incorporated into the most recent design submission which further address the request for similar architectural and landscape details by providing additional visual variety and breaking up the scale on the front facade, including varying the heights of the mansard roofs. adding additional recesses and projections at the front facade, and providing more of a wall plane offset where the two- story front wall transitions to a one-story wall. Applicant Response Letters dated August 18, 2016 and March 17, 2017. 20 BN 3I57232Iv! Comments Small scale buildings with a strong pedestrian orientation (PLG. 48) Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response. Letter dated Mardi 17, 201.7 (Suntmaty of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, "). Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). The additional recommendations made by the Town's consulting architect. Cannon Design Group, have been incorporated into the most recent design sttbmissicm for the Third Redesign as described above and explained at the December 13. 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27. 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared by Buchalter. The sensitive interface of commercial development with adjacent residential neighborhoods (PLG, 48) Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18. 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summery ofArchitectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). The revised Project combines the two former buildings, sod repositions it to therear setback. The new building is over 60 feet further away from Alberto Way than the former 401 building. In addition, the tower elements and balcony on the north side of the building have been eliminated, which allow for better views and more privacy to surrounding residential neighborhoods. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Strang encouragement of a unique Los Gatos scale and character (PLG. 48) Refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Additional recommendations trade by the Town's consulting architect, Cannon Design Group, have been incorporated into the most recent design submission. The Project has been designed so that it preserves and promotes existing commercial centers consistent with the maintenance and design of a small-town Class A office center. Applicant Response Letter dared August 18, 2016;.Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Chances and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27. 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dttied January 2, 2018 prepared by Buchalter. 2t BN 31572321vl Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (m addition to this matrix) Design to maintain and reinforce the unique scale and character of Los Gatos (PLG, 48) Please refer to Applicant Response. Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March t'7.2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes. Additional recommendations made by the Town's consulting architect, Cannon Desist Group. have been incorporated into the most recent design submission to maintain and reinforce the scale and character of Los Gatos by providing visual variety reducing the mass of the central link of the setback portion of the building and adding additional trellis features at the windows on the front facade. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes}. See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Break overall building masses into segments similar to those of nearby structures and parcels (PLG, 48) Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 20'.6 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Sununary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See the discussion above regarding the applicant's efforts to break up the massing and scale in the revised project reflected in the Third Redesign as further discussed atthe December 13, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016: Applicant Response Letter dated March 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes); Response 1 in Arc-Tec Response Letter dated March 16, 2017. See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7. 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated Januarc 2, 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Avoid design which consists largely of boxes with applied design elements (PLG, 48) Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18. 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dared March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes andrrsponses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, M ehael Kane and MatthewHudes). The revised design incorporates visual variety and break up in scale on the front facade, including increasing the mansard roof height on the Ieft side of the building to create differential in the massing, while preventing adverse impacts to the views of the trees and hills in the distance. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016: Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes); Response 1 in Arc-Tec Response Letter dated March 16, 2017. See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27. 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared by Buchalter. AN 315721'-1*'1 Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Break facade segments into modules (PLG, 49) Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August I8, 201E and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary ofArchitectural Changes andresponses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, lynchael Kane and Matthew'fludes). The design includes additional visual variety and break up in scale on the front facade, including varying the heights of the mansard roofs. adding additional recesses andptcjections at the front facade. and providing more of a wall plane offset where the two- story front wall transitions to a one-story wail. Provide a unified design around al! sides of buildings (PLG, 49) The project's design is consistent around all four sides of the buil ling. Additional design enhancements and detailing are provided at the front facade of the building facing Alberto Way. Applicant Response Letter dated August 13, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Nudes); Response in Arc-Tec Response Letter dated March 16, 2017. See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7. 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Response 1 in Arc-Tec Response Letter dated March 16. 2017 Where continuity of design is difficult to achieve, provide substantial landscaping (PLG, 49) The architectursl details and landscape design are in strict compliance with the Town's zoning requirements for the site. The revised design offers a generous landscape amenity area in front of the building, facing onto Alberto Way. NIA Integrate the screening for all trash and service areas into the design of the buildings (PLO, 49) All trash and service areas on the site will be properly screened from view as is required by Town of Los Gatos zoning requirements, See e.g., Conditions 132-133 of Project Conditions of Approval. (Note: condition numbers may change due to updated Planning Commission resolutions) Operable windows (PLG, 49) Provide visual buffering of on - site utility elements (PLG, 49) Cpe-able windows are not practical due to code and Title 24requirements which mandate an energy efficient HVAC system the efficiency of which is compromised b;, the use of operable windows. See e.g., Condition 39 ()film Project Conditions ofApproval. (Note: condition numbers may change due to updated Planning Commission resolutions 1, Locate transformers, valves and similar elements where they will be least visible (PLG, 49) All service areas and on -site utility equipment (transformers, etc.) on the site will be properly screened from view per Teem of Los Gatos zoning requirements. See e.g., Conditions 132-133 of Project Conditions of Approval. (Noce: condition numbers may change due to updated Planning Commission resolutions). 23 BN 315/2321 ut Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Subordinate parking to the buildings. Avoid parking lots in locations that interrupt retail and/or structural continuity near front property lines. (PLG, 49) Parking is "subordinated" to the buildings with the provision of an underground parking garage. No surface parking lots are proposed that would interrupt retail or structural continuity near the frontage. N/A. Also see revised project submittal dated Marel' 2017, Projects with multiple tenants will be required to prepare a Master Signage Program (PLG, 49) Once a tenant and/or tenants have been identified, the Owner will submit a Master Signage Program (t'.ISP) that is consistent and complies with. Towfir requirements for exterior building and site si_nage. NIA Additional disclosures describing work to be performed. (l3VV 6) This comment does not raise a CEQA issue; no fiirther response is required. N/A The Project will depress Alberto Way Property Values both during and atter construction (PLG, 42) This comment does riot raise an environmental issue; no further response is required. Final E1R, Response to Comment Letter 42. Respcnse 46 If water is used to control particulates during construction, trucks exiting the site will leave with mud on their tires, which will be deposited in Alberto Way and Hwy-9 (PLG, 43) DE1R Section 3.2 evaluates construction -related air quality i npacts. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 and Conditions 120 and 13 I address measures to minimize potential for deposition of dust and mud at off -site locations. (Note: condition numbers may change due to updated resolutions). DEER During construction, the road beds of Alberto Way and Hwy-9 will be destroyed or seriously damaged by the fully loaded concrete trucks (PLG, 43). Conditions 106 through 111 require that the developer submit a construction ntananement plan prior to Issuance of any permits to commence work, (.Note: condition numbers may change due to updated resolutions). DE1R MM T-2 calls for a construction contract with Los Gatos but, there is no mitigation for the construction contract with Caltrans (PLG. 43). Per condition 105, the developer shall be responsible for obtaining Caltrans approval ofa traffic control plan for work within the Caltrans right-of-way. (itTote: conditiioi numbers may change due to updated resolutions). N/A BN 31572321 v i Comments 200 diesel truck trips per day for 1 to 2 years; some days more with 6-7 trucks at a time. 174 round trips per day. address truck traffic impacts due to beach traffic. Construction traffic impacts to pedestrians. Response to Comment i o construction would occur on weekends. The Project construction activities are designated for M'Iondaythrough Friday from (1-4 in order to mitigate peak traffic concerns. Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) N/A. See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, 2017 for the Second Rdesi}n and November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared by Buchalter. CEQA document needs to be The modifications described above are feasible and March 17. 2017 letter and Final EIR.. See revised and recirculated. represent minor revisions and clarifications to the Applicant Response Letters dated September 27. overall project that will not add significant new information to the Town of Los Gatos 401-109 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Alberto Way Draft and Final Environmental impact Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared Report (EIR). Recirculation of the EIR is not required because the proposed modifications will further lessen impacts that the Town previously found to be leis than -significant. Further the changes incorporated into the Project would not involve a new significant environmental impact. a substantial increase in the severity of a prior environmental irrtpact, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that we declined to adopt and that will clearly lessen any project impacts. No information provided in this submittal indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the EIR. by Buchalter. Project negatively impacts senior citizens who reside in the neighborhood (LGC, p. 5). Fails to compensate damaged sellers due to Tower property values. This comment does not raise a CEQA issue: no further response is required. Final EIR. response to Carmnnent Letter #2., Response # 6 (PLG, p. 42) 25 BN 315723 ..1 '1 Legend: PD = Proposed Development PLG = Pueblo de Los Gatos Submitted to Los Gatos for 405 Alberto Way (aka 401-409 Alberto Way) included in April 7, 2017 Staff Report $VV = Bella Vista Villages Submitted to Los Gatos for 405 Alberto Way (aka 401-409 Alberto Way) included in April 7, 2017 Staff Report LGC = Los Gatos Commons Submitted to Los Gatos for 405 Alberto Way (aka 401-409 Alberto Way) included in April 7, 2017 Staff Report 26 BN3}^723'_I0 Buchalter September 27, 2017 VIA E-MAIL Mayor Suyoc and Counci;!members Los Gatos Town Council ! 10 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 55 8ocond Strom. suite 1700 San tramcars), CA 94105 415.227.3800 Phone 415.221.0170 Fax Fldo Num3or: L4342-0002 415.227,3508 Direst agirocra+ZbuLtpllersorn Re: 401-409 Alberto Way- Architecture and Site Application ti5-I5-056, Conditional Use Pernik Application U-15-009, and Environmental Impact Report EIR-16-001. Property Owner: CWA Realty. Applicant/Appellant: LP Acquisitions, LLC. Appeal of a Planning Commission Denial of Request to Demolish Three Existing Office Buildings and Construct a New, 2-Story Office Building with Below Grade and At -Grade Parking on Property Zoned CH. APN 529-23-018. Dear Mayor Sayoc and Members of the Town Council, Buchalter represents LP Acquisitions, the developer attic project located at 401-409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos ("Alberto Way Project" or "Project"). First, an behalf of my client, we thank you lhr considering the Alberto Way Project and our request that you overturn the Planning Commission's denial orate Project approvals as referenced above. Secondly, al your inceting of September 19, 2017, the Los Gatos Town Council closed the public hearing but invited the applicant and the public to submit written comments far the C'ouncil's consideration at its upcoming meeting of October 3, 201.7 concerning the Project. Accordingly, the purpose of this letter is to address several key comments that were submitted to you as desk items or that were made at the September 19i1' Council Meeting in an ctfort to address any remaining questions about the Project in anticipation of your deliberations at next week's meeting. buchalter.com Los Angeles Napa Valley Orange County Sacramento San Francisco Scottsdale FIN 3 I 00566v I Buchalter Mayor Sayoc and Councilmcmhers September 27, 2017 Page 2 No new comments were submitted that undermine the adequacy of the EIR or the Project approvals. Ianportantly, all of the comments submittal last week opposing the Project arc the same continents that commenters opposing the Project submitted to the Town in August 2016, and in March 2017, April 2017, and again, in May 2017. Many of these are the same comments presented at the May 10, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. None atilt: continent letters included in the September 14, 2017 Staff Report and none of the desk items submitted on September 19t1i contain atiy new ccmnients or any information indicating that the Project would result in new significant environmental impacts, and specifically any impacts related to hydrology. geology, traffic (sec Exhibit .4), aesthetic and visual impacts. As we stated in our May 9, 2017 letter to Jennifer Arrcr, when an agency prepares an environmental impact report (E1R), the issue is whether substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusions, not whether others might disagree with those conclusions (see e.g., North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Wader Dist, Bel. of i)ir•ectors, 216 Cal.App.4t11614, 624 (2013)). The extensive analysis and information contained in the Ell( and the Town's administrative record demonstrates that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that all significant environmental impacts have been mitigated to a less than significant level, and the Town Council may find that the Project complies with the Town's General Plan, zoning and Commercial Design Guidelines as further discussed below. That finding has not changed in light of the sane comments that were submitted prior tei the September 19'h Council meeting. lithe Council grants the appeal, suhstantiatl evidence supports the Council's certification of the FIR and approval of the Revised Project. One commenter suggested that while they urge the Council to uphold the Planning Commission's denial, if the Council chooses to grant the appeal and approve the Project, they asked the Council to remand the matter back to the Commission. They also believe the Planning Commission was not under an obligaatum to adopt any findings or to certify the FiR in light of the comments contained in the administrative record. We recognize the Planning Commission and the Town Council have discretion in applying the Town's General Plan policies, zoning regulations, and Commercial Design Guidelines in reaching a decision as to whether or not to approve the Architecture and Site Application (S-15-056) (ASA) and the Conditional (Ise Permit U-15-009 (CLIP) for the replacement of the existing office buildings with a new office building. But even discretionary actions require findings and the findings must be supported by substantial evidence as explained in our May 19, 2017 appeal. As the California Supreme Court explained in the seminal ease, Topanga Association far a Scenic Cc'i )r- nity u. County of Los Angeles, 11 Ca1.3d 506 (1974). this findings requirement particularly applies to decisions, such as those at issue here, which are in adjudicalory in nature. Findings arc needed in order to enable the parties to determine kiN 3I09050(1, I Buchalter Mayor Sayoc and Councilrnernbers September 27, 201 7 Page whether and on what basis they should seek review, if findings are not provided to"bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and the decision," then neither the Hpp1icnnt/appellsant nor the public will be able to determine the basis of the agency's decision. That is the problem here. The Planning Commission was all over the map in terms of its expectations regarding a reduced project size when substantial evidence showed the Reduced Seale Alternative wus found infeasible. The record reflects that some of the commenters requested that the Project be even smaller and closer to the square footage of the existing buildings, but the EIR determined that this version of the "No Project" alternative would fiul the basic project objectives. While commenters and the Commission expressed concern about the Revised Project being "too big," 80-90 %o of the C.'onunission's requested revisions were incorporated into the Revised Project as noted in the administrative record. Por example, the revised design would actually be lower in height than the tallest point ot'tho existing buildings. Similarly, the proposed buildings would be set back from the street frontage in a manner to further protect views when compared to the existing buildings, freeway, landscaping, and other developed conditions on the property that currently block views ot'the Santa Cruz Mountains today from various vantage points. Notwithstanding the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission never explained how reducing the size of the building by another 9,00() square feet would reduce the neighbors' concerns. In that way, my client and the Council were left to guess at what an acceptable square footage could be because the Town's policies do not provide any clarification on this point. Because the Commission rejected the Revised Project even in the face of substantial evidence in the record and findings that supported staffs recommendation to approve the Revised Project, we request that the Council exercise its discretion and adopt findings in support of granting the appeal and approving the Revised Project in accordance with the Town Municipal Code. Downtown shuttle service analysis demonstrates further reduction in Project trip generation. The Alberto Way Project includes a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program as discussed in the HIIt. The TDM Program includes the use of a shuttle service ("CAT" — Community Area Transit) available for future employees of the proposed office building. As stated at prior neighborhood meetings, the Planning Commission meetings and last week's Council meeting, LP Acquisitions also agreed to make free Downtown shuttle service available to nearby residents for their trips to Downtown retail businesses and services. Some neighbors expressed concern that the use of the CAT would not reduce Project - generated traffic. Shuttle service is a standard tom of transportation demand management and is often used as a mitigation measure to further reduce trip generation. Exhibit B contains a memorandum prepared by Hexagon that estimates the trip reduction that may be achieved with employee and resident use of the CAT to amplify the information previously provided in the EIR 101310905660 Buchalter Mayor Sayoc and Councilniemhers September 27, 2017 Page 4 and included in our prior written submittals for the Council's consideration. This information shows that there making the shuttle available for daytime use achieves some incidental benefits for the community. LP Acquisitions previously submitted information to the Town regarding tlic infeasibility of the Reduced Scale Alternative. According to CFQA, Project alternatives should be considered wheii the Project results in significant impacts. Since the .F,IR concluded that the impacts of the Original Project could he mitigated to a less-than-signi ficant level that would not significant or adversely affect the environment, technically, a Reduced Seale Alternative would not he. necessary to mitigate significant impacts. [f anything, both the Revised Project and the Reduced Scale Alternative merely further reduce impacts already found to be less than significant. Nonetheless, several commenters requested that if the Council grants the appeal, that the Council approve the Reduced Scale Alternative, and not the Revised Project. As Mr. Lamb indicated at last week's Council electing, the Planning Commission was unable to settle on a consistent direction regarding the reduction in the size atilt; project, and at times seemed to suggest the Project be reduced to the size of the Reduced Scale Alternative, Even though we submitted information indicating that the Revised Project size of 83,000 square feet was feasible, the Commission suggested that was not good enough and they denied the Project because LP Acquisitions was unable to reduce thc size of the Project to the size of the in/t'asible Reduced Scale Alternative. One commenter incorrectly stated in its September l 8f1i submittal, that LP Acquisitions: "...has not submitted any data sufficient to .show that purported additional costs or decreased profits of a smaller project alternative would render it impracticable to proceed with the Project." (Proveneher & Platt, LL.P better dated September 18, 2016 (sic) page 4). L.Y%lihit C. however, contains excerpts from the letters LP Acquisitions and Buchalter previously submitted to the Town since June 2016 addressing the question of feasibility of the alternatives, As you will see, this information explains why the Revised Project is feasible, and why the 74,260 square foot Reduced Seale Alternative identified in the IIR and proposed by the Planning Commission was not feasible from a cost perspective. We also explained in prior eorrespnndencc how the Reduced Scale Alternative failed to meet most of the basic project objectives in accordance with (.'EQA. Additionally, because the Planning Commission provided conflicting direction as to the scope of any reductions in square footage ranging from 40,000 square to the 74,260 square feet for the Reduced Scale Alternative identified in the FIR, my client used the 74,260 square foot threshold as a proxy for determining whether or not further reductions would fail the feasibility test. In other words, if the Project is infeasible at 74,26(1 square feet, and if it is infeasible based on the existing condition as reported in the FIR, thc BN 3I O9O 66v 1 Buchalter Mayor Sayoc and Councilmembcrs September 27, 2017 Page 5 Project also fails the test of feasibility at a level below 74,260 square feet. None of the information contained in Exhibit C constitutes new information. For the rca$afs set firth in Exhibit C, and recognizing that the Revised Project already reflects significant revisions to address the commenters' and Planning Contlrrissions concerns about the massing and scale oi'the Project (e.g., lowering in building height, greater setback from street frontage, etc.) in a jeasib!e manner, my client submittal information demonstrating its commitment to work with the community to incorporate further reductions in the size and scale of the building. Recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required before the Council were to consider approving the Revised Project. Some commenters requested that the Town recirculate the Draft E1R due to new information that they submitted that alleges the Revised Project would result in new significant geologic and hydrologic impacts, traffic impacts, aesthetic, and visual impacts, but just as with the prior comments, the latest comments raise the same issues as the earlier comments opposing the original Project. No information provided in the latest round of continents indioutes that the I)ratt EIR was inadequate or conelusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the EIR. I7urtheiiztore, thc EIR concluded that all of the significant environmental impacts of the Original Project could be mitigated to a less than significant level. Since the Revised Project is smaller than the Original Project evaluated in the EIR, the Revised Project would result in even fewer and lesser environmental impacts than the Original Project_ This is also the case for the Reducexl Scale Alternative which was similarly analyzed in thc EIR, for which the Town concluded the impacts would be proportionately reduced. Section 15126.6 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that an EIR's analysis of alternatives shall be limited to feasible alternatives ":that would avoid or substantially lessen" any of the Project's significant environmental impacts, In this case, the EIR contains information regarding the environmental impacts Ufa Reduced Scale Alternative even though neither the Original Project nor the Revised Project would result in any significant environmental impacts, and even though substantial evidence indicates that the Reduced Scale Alternative would be considered infeasible. Thus, the Project EIR complies with CEQA and the Town Council is not required to recirculate the FIR prior to considering approval of the Revised Project, because there are no new significant impacts nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts previously evaluated in the EIR. I In fait, we note that in its denial, the Planning Commission relied an information contained in the Draft MR to decide to deny the Revisal Project ibccause the Revised Project was reduced to the size of the infeasible liedneecl Scale Alternative) before they reviewed the 1•:IR, just so they would not have to ccriify the haft. tiro 3IUd0566vI Buchalter Mayor Sayoc and Counciln]cmbers September 27, 2017 Page f� We respectfully request that the Council consider grant the appeal, certify the FIR, and consider approving the ASA and CUP at its meeting next Tuesday. We appreciate your consideration of the enclosed information and look forward to the Town Council's continued deliberations regarding the Alberto Way Project next Tuesday. By Exhibits Sincerely, BUCX-IA L 1'ER A Pr essiokas! Curporution Al cc (via email): Clerk Administrator Laurel Prcvetti, 'Town Manager Rob Schultz, Town Attorney Joel Paulson, Community Development Director Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner Randy Lamb, LP Acquisitions Shane Artcrs, LP Acquisitions Jolic Houston, Berliner Cohen Dan Orloff, Orloff Williams Dan Kirby, ARC TEC, Inc. BN 3IO9c 6riv? EXHIBIT A -0- s 12, �.. I-IXAOM hAMSPOTATION CONSULTANTS, IN(. Memorandum Date: September 19, 2017 To: Shane Artars, Lamb Partners From: Gary Black 011ie Zhou Subject: Traffic Analysis of the Proposed downtown Snuttie Service for 401 Alberto Way Office Project Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc, has completed a traffic analysis of the proposed Community Area Transit Free Downtown Shuttle Service in Los Gatos, California. This shuttle service is being proposed as part of the proposed 401-409 Alberto Way office development located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. The shuttle would be available to the public and is proposed to run with a 30- to 45-minute headway between 10:30 AM and 3:30 PM on weekdays as well as on a select number of weekends. The shuttle would depart the proposed office development at 401-409 Alberto Way and travel clockwise eastbound on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, southbound on Los Gatos Boulevard/Main Street, northbound on Santa Cruz Avenue, eastbound on Andrews Street, southbound on University Avenue and eastbound on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road (see Figure 1). The shuttle would stop at the Masonic Hall, Town Hall, Los Gatos Town Park Plaza, Downtown Los Gatos and the Walgreens and Safeway on Santa Cruz Avenue. Based on the proposed 30- to 45-minute headway. it is anticipated that the shuttle service would provide 6 to 10 roundirip services through downtown Los Gatos between 10:30 AM and 3:30 PM. Assuming a maximum 30-person capacity for the shuttle, this free shuttle service could potentially serve a maximum of 300 passengers (30-person capacity with 10 roundtrips) per day, While most of the passengers are expected to be future employees at the proposed office development, it is anticipated that some residents along Alberto Way would also utilize this shuttle service, thus reducing the number of vehicle trips between Alberto Way and downtown Los Gatos. Residents in downtown Los Gatos could also ride this shuttle to the Walgreens and Safeway on Santa Cruz Avenue, and employees on Main Street could also ride this shuttle to downtown Los Gatos during lunch time. Assuming 20% of ail passengers were induced to make the trip because of the shuttle service (meaning they would not have made a trip without the shuttle service), the remaining 80% of the passengers (maximum 240 passengers) would have made the trip by driving their own car otherwise. Assuming 80% of the passengers that were making the trip regardless of the shuttle service are future employees. and employees travel in pairs (two per car), the shuttle service could eliminate a maximum 96 vehicle trips per day that would have been made by employees at the proposed office development driving to downtown Los Gatos, Assuming the remaining 20% of the passengers that were making the trip regardless of the shuttle service are local residents, and residents drive alone, the shuttle service could eliminate a maximum 48 vehicle trips per day that would have been made by residents driving to downtown Los Gatos. Therefore, assuming a 30- minute shuttle headway and the shuttle has a 30-person capacity, the proposed shuttle service could eliminate maximum 144 vehicles per day. There would also be comparable savings in greenhouse gas emissions. 4 North Second Street; Suite 400 - San Jose, Calirnrn;a 95133 - phone 408.971.6100 - fax 408.971.6102 • www.hextra ns.corn EXHIBIT B H[xAoM TRANSPORTATION (oMsuuT.. INC. September 27, 2017 Mr. Randy Lamb Lamb Partners 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Subject: Evaluation of the Traffic Impact Findings Consistency for fhe Reduced 401- 409 Alberto Way Office Project in Los Gatos, CA Dear Mr, Lamb, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc, completed an evaluation or the reduced 401-409 Alberto Way office project's consistency with the traffic impact findings documented in the 401 to 409 Alberto Way Final Transportation impact Analysis (TIA), dated August 2, 2016, The TIA analyzed a 93,500 s.f. office development project, The TIA concluded that the project would not generate any CEQA-related significant transportation impacts. Subsequent to the TIA, the project applicant is proposing a reduced project of 83,000 s.f. office, which is approximately a 11 % reduction from the project size analyzed in the TIA. Since the currently proposed project is smaller than the project analyzed in the TIA, the analysis conducted in the TEA is deemed conservative, and the reduced project's CEQA-related transportation impacts would be less than significant. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for this project analyzed a Reduced Scale Alternative at approximately 74,260 s.f., which is a smaller project size than the currently proposed 83,000 s.f. office. Therefore, the CEQA-related transportation impacts for the Reduced Scale Alternative analyzed in the EIR would also be Tess than significant. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Garry K. Black President 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 • San Jose, California 95113 • phone 408,971,5100• fax 408.971.6102 . www.hextrans.com EX L IBIT C Buchalter September 20, 2017 VIA E-MAIL (RSCIILULTi;f[tzLOSGATOSCA.GOV) Mr. Rob Schultz, Town Attorney Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Phone: (408) 354-6872 Entail: rschultr(Ccvlosgatosca.gov 56 Second Sheet Si' le 1700 San Francisco. CA 94 105 415.2270000 Phone 415.227 0770 Fax Fite Number -4342-0002 415.J77 MOH nirer•.1 epu errs ([s.buc' is Its r. coin Re: 401.409 Alberto Way, APN 529-23 -018 Information Regarding Project Fcasihility As your know, Buchalter represents LP Acquisitions, the developer of the project located at 401-409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos ("Alberto Way Project"). At its meeting of September 19, 2017, the Los Gatos Town Council closed the public hearing but invited the applicant and the public to submit written comments tier the Council's consideration al its upcoming meeting of October 2, 2017 conceining the Alberto Way Project. l understand that questions arose concerning the in1flrination we previously provided the Town regarding the feasibility (or lack thereof) related to the Reduced Scale Alternative evaluated in the 4(11-4(19 Alberto Way Draft Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number 2015122041 ('`Alberto Way Draft Alit"), Please find attached For your review and consideration the following documents that we previously submitted to the Town that speci fic4 )6y address the cost considerations aspect of the f'ea;ibility attic Project alternatives: • Excerpts from the Buchalter May 9, 2017 I.eitcr containing our supplemental responses to address the Provcnchcr & Platt, LLP ("Provencher & F1att'') Letter submitted on behalf of the Alberto Way Neighbors: Los Gatos Commons, Pueblo de Los Gatos, Las Casitas and Bella Vista Village ("Alberto Way Neighbors") t'or the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on May 10, 2017 for the 401-409 Alberto buchafter.com Los Angeles Napa Valley Orange County Sacramento San francRRco Scottsdale I3'' 3i078372v2 Buchalter Mr. Rob Schultz, Town Attorney September 26, 2017 Page 2 Way Project (Attcrchrrrcnt 1): • Excerpts from the LP Acquisitions' March 17, 2017 Response Letter to the Planning Commission from the Public Hearing on August 24, 2016 (Attachment 2); and • June l3, 2016 Letter from LP Acquisitions regarding the applicant's comments on the Alberto Way Draft FIR (Alto:chrnent 3). C1+;OA Definition of Feasibility The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) require that an E€R examine a range of alternatives that are potentially feasible to a proposed project (sec e.g., City o/'Long Batch v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 920). An EIR is not required to evaluate infeasible alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 1516.6(a). An EIR is also not required to consider alternatives that do not result in significant environmental advantages in comparison with the proposed Project. This is true particularly in those instances in which the alternatives would not reduce significant environmental impacts, such as in our case when the Project does not result in any significant unznitigatesl cnvironrncntal impacts_ As you know, Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 define "feasible" as "capable of being mx,omplishcd in a succe,ssfuI manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" for purposes of complying with CEQA (also sec, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(0). Among the factors that may be considered when addressing, the feasibility of on -site Alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, and jurisdictional boundaries. No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives under CEQA. 14 Cal. Code 1Zcgs. Section 15I26.6(f1(1); Citizens of"Golettr Vallee, v, Ikard .of Supervisors, 52 Cal 3d 553, 565 (1990). Economic infeasibility must be supported by evidence and analysis showing that it cannot reasonably be implemented, basal on a reasonably prudent standard. Kings County Farm Bureau v. (ity ofIlanftrd, 221 CAI. App. 3d 692, 737 (1990). The Revised Protect (83,000 sf) LI' Acquisitions reduced the size of its Original Project to respond to the Planning Commission's direction from August 2016 to further reduce the size of the Project as discussed in Attachment 2. My client's revised 83,0{}0 square foot Project which was presented to the Planning Commission and the Town Council is greater than the 74,260 square -foot Reduced Scale AIterative included in the Draft E1R, and it is less than the 92,800 square foot original project evaluated in the FIR. The Revised Project at 83,000 square feet with the subsurface 3N 3 1)78372v2 Buchalter Mr. Rob Schultz, Town Attorney September 26, 2017 Page 3 parking garage is feasible for the reasons discussed in Attachment 1, By contrast, the 74,260 square foot Reduced Scale Alternative is not feasible as explained in 4t1achtnerrt 2 and further discussed below. The MR Reduced Project Alternative (74,260 sf) We submitted a comment letter on behalf of LP Acquisitions regarding the Town's Draft EIR questioning the Draft EIR's analysis of the Reduced Project Alternative when that alternative baled to meet most of the basic project objectives (,attachment 3) required for the Project. LP Acquisitions' March 17, 2017 Lotter included in the May 10, 2017 Staff Report further explained why the smaller 74,260 square foot oftiee: building surrounded by surface; parking failed to meet CEQA's dctinition of feasibility due to cost considerations. The March 17, 2017 Letter contained in Attachment 2 focused specifically on the question of economic feasibility, and explained that when combined with the land price, the land acquisition cost and the parking structure cost resulted in a development cost of S615 per building square foot. Current contractor estimates as of September 2017 for construction costs are now above $ 700 per building square foot. For the 83,000 square foot Revised Project, the construction coasts result in a total of approximately $58,1 00.000 just for construction (R. Lamb, LP Acquisitions, September 25, 2017). By way of example, one sub -category of costs, the costs for the two story underground parking structure, are estimated at $ 15,000,000. This is because the parking garage is very technical to design, given drive aisle spacing and efficiencies in laying out the required parking spaces, and to be efficient, must allow the crffi e building to sit directly above the garage using the some perimeter. MVioreovcr, building square footage reductions do not equate to corresponding reductions in garage square footage and associated costs. This mains that reducing thc building size to 74,260 square feet under the Reduced Project Alternative worth! not result in a comparable reduction in the size of the parking garage. Due to the constraints identified in the preceding paragraph, the parking spaces would be taken out of the surface parking, not the parking garage. My client is further limited in its ability to reduce the garage given that at a 9,0.0 square foot reduction in office space, the resulting reduction in parking needed for the project would be equal to 36 stalls. The architect, however, is limited in his ability to design an efficient drive aisle and parking scenario, even with only dropping 36 stalls. Consequently, this would entail a redesign of thc office building, which would change the footprint of the building, thereby further increasing costs. Accordingly, any reduction in building size results in a corresponding increase in the costs for the garage alone, on a per square foot basis. Another constraint represented in the information LP Acquisitions submitted in March 2017 is attributable to investor and lender interest given certain industry standards regarding rut tali on Bost to justify the investment. For example, with respect to the Alberto Way Project, ran 31E178312v2 Buchalter Mr. Rob Schultz, Town Attorney September 26, 2017 Page 4 lenders expect that the project will realizes 12% return on costs. This return pr ovkies the lender with some assurances to mitigate potential risks and that the lender's Funds are safely covered on the Project. For the 83,000 square tot Revised Project, the return on cost including the land exists would account for an amount significantly below the 12 % return on costs, and with the 74,260 square foot Reduced Scale Alternative, the return is even lower approximating closer to 10 4 return. Please lit me know if you have any questions concerning the information we have provided regard the infeasibility of the Reduced Scale Alternative. We appreciate your consideration of the enclosed information and look forward to the Town Council's continued deliberations regarding the Alberto Way Project next Tuesday. Sincerely, BUCHA LTER A Professional Corporation Attachments cc (via email): Randy Lamb Shane Artcrs Jolic Houston Dan Orloff Dan Kirby f�r� 3I07K.3724 Buchalter May 9,2017 X-4141\. VIA le, -MAIL (JARI!'Il+:f�t % fAT( FED ,.\ 55 Srcund Shoe Suite 1700 SS44 Fiamieaa. CA 94105 415.21f.0:100 Nolo 415.227.0,/0t ox File Number _4342.0002 415.727 ANIS nInarl ague,r2 bucholler earn Ms. Jennifer Armer Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Phone: (408) 354-6872 Email: jarmcr i:losgatosca,gov Re: Planning Commission Public Ilearing ol'May 10, 2017 - Supplemental Responses 401-409 Alberto Way Architecture atnd Site Application S-15-056 Conditional Use Permit A.pplicatiou U-15-009 APN 529-23-I)18 Buchalter represents LP Acquisitions, the developer of the project located at 401-409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos. I have reviewed the May 5, 2017 Town of Los Gatos Staff Report (the "May 51ta Staff Report") regarding the Architecture and Site Application S-15-056, Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009, and EnvironmentalImpact Report 1::1R-16-001 for the 401 409 Alberto Way Project (the "Project") on behalf of my client. The May 5l1' ,Staff Repoli includes comment letters received after distribution oithe staff report addendum for the originally scheduled April 12, 2017. meeting (Exhibit 421). Most of the comments are the same comments that the commenters submitted in August 2016 and in March 2017. The purpose of this letter, however, is to respond to comments from the following commenter~ regarding the technical documents that the Project team submitted on April 24, 2017: • Provenchcr & Hatt, LLP (-`Proveneher & Flan on behalf ofthe Alberto Way Neighbors: Los Gatos Commons, Pueblo de Los Gatos, Las C'asttas and Bella Vista Village ("Alberto Way Neighbors") lilr the upcoming Planning Commission meeting Page 1 of 3 in the May 51" Staff Report indicates that the new continent letters arc found in Exhibit 44, lxit tlw 'fable. aeon tents on page 3 of 3 indicates that the new continent letters are included in Exhibit 42. It appears that the comment letters are flnrnd in Exhibit 42. huchalter,coln Lot. Angeles Napa Valley Otango County Skacra1wmtc, San Fr1nCt5cc Scottsdale [vs 251,4140`v2 Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Amer May 9, 2017 Page 5 Thus, all of the traffic comments that the commenters continue to raise were already addressed in the t`1R, the technical analyses and the prior responses to comments, including our April 2411' Supplemental Responses, and there; are no new significant impacts triggering the need I'br further analysis or a change in the project to address the Project's traffic ianpaets. New Residential Alternative One commenter has suggested that my client has not evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives that would significantly reduce or avoid the Project's impacts or explained why the other alternatives were rejected in light of the "unacknowledged" impacts raised by the; commenter, implying that the smaller office building surrounded by surface parking in lieu of a subsurface parking garage should be evaluated as an ttlternarivc to the Project. Another commenter suggested that a residential alternative for an active adult community be evaluated. Regarding the Ell('s analysis ofallcrnalives, the P.1R evaluated three alternatives to the Proposed Projeci. An alternative site location alternative was considered hut rejected because the reason liar the Project is to redevelop the Project site, ,and no other suitable sites were available in the vicinity ofthe Project site that could accomplish that same basic project purpose as explained in Section 6.3 of the Draft MR. The applicant's further revisions to the Project reflected in the revised Project were designed to reduce the size orate Project to R3,0O0 square feet to respond to the Planning Commission's direction from August 2016. The revised Project at 83,000 square feet is greater than the 74,260 square toot Reduced Scale Alternative included in the Draft FIR, and less than the 92,800 square foot project evaluated in the 1:1R. Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 dclincs "feasible" as 'capable of being accomplished in a successful Enaiuter within u reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors," Among the fiicturs that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of on -site alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, and jurisdictional boundaries. No one of these fiactors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives under CEQA.. 14 Cal. Code Regs, Section 1512t .6(0(1); Citizens of c o/ela Valley r. Board of'Supervisors, 52 Cal 3d 553, 565 (1990). Economic infeasibility must be supported by evidence and analysis showing that it cannot reasonably be implemented, based on a reasonably prudent standard. King~ County !wren !Bureau v, City uf"llanfnr-cl, 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 737 (1990). The revised Project at 83,000 square feet with the subsurface parking garage is feasible, as explained in my client's April 24'11 Supplemental Responses. As LP Acquisitions indicated on numerous occasions, one of the key project objectives. is to build a Class A office building in the Los Gatos market. Specific factors that are critical to the development of a Class A office building to iteconimodate this market sector include: EaN 2864149'v2 Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armcr Ivltiy 9, 2017 Page (i • Class A tech company users require large footprints of 35,000 square fee[ per floor and above as demonstrated by the recent approval of the Nettlix campus. • Recruiting hiring and retention ol'employees is extremely competitive in Silicon Valley and large facilitiess with many amenities are the future of high tech employsneiit opportunities for the foreseeable future. • Class A tech users need a minimum builcling(s) size fiir the amenities they offer their employees to provide the services and lii]ly absorb the costs (i.c., fitness rooms, bike storage, cafeteria, outside common spaces and large conference facilities). • liniployee health and wellbeing requires access to natural light as a priority and is facilitated by large glass lines and skylight areas where possible. • Secured parking is a Claiss A space advantage for a company by locating tenant parking underground. Regarding a smaller office building surrounded by surface parking, by contrast, the building developer would be unable to provide secured parking For its tenants, or accommodate the types 0l'building amenities and features that are included in a Class A office building in response to market demands. Regarding a senior residential community alternative, my client met with Town advisory officials early in the process to discuss a residential project for the site, and was advised that residential uses would not be permitted on the property for the following reasons: • residential use is not a permitted nr conditionally permitted use in this zoning district, and thus would require a general plan amendment and rezoning in order to change the land use on the site; • a residential project would impact schools by adding more kids to the Town that would lead to further crowding in the schools and result in thc need to add more classrooms and teachers. (Admittedly, an active adult community would not have the same impact on schools). Additionally, given the site's proximity to Highway t) and I Iighway 17, a residential community on the property would be exposed to elevated noise and air quality impacts cute to exposure to vehicular -generated noise and air pollutant emissions. Senior citizens arc considered sensitive receptors and may be exposed to potential respiratory issues duc to the proximity to the freeway. Also, if the commenters are concerned about thc potential exposure to inundation due to dam failure tit 1. enihan Dun then That concern would be exacerbated by locating more residents in the area as compared to the proposed Project which would result in exposure of an office building that is not occupied on a full-time basis, Moreover, residential uses would generate approximately 9 to 10 daily trips per unit depending on the type of dwelling unit, thereby HI' VC6,1 i4N5v2 March 17,2O17 L ACQUISITIONS kMAL LSTAI t: DEVELOPMENT oitaA ff-.- Ms. Jennifer Arrner, Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Phone: (408) 354-6872 Email: jarrrier@lesgatusca.gov @losgatusca.gov RE. Response Letter to I'lanritng Commission from Public Hearing on August 24, 2016. 405 Alberto Way Architecture and Site Application 5-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application I,I-15-009 APN 529-23-018 Thank you for re.comrr ending approval of LP Acquisition's above -referenced pro,='ect to the Planning Commission at its hearing on August 24, 2016, in anticipation of the continued Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for March 22nd, this response letter describes the architectural changes between the Original Plan set (e/k/a 401.4i05 Alberto Way) submitted on July 13, 2016 and the Revised Plan Set (a/K/a 405 Allier tu Way) stibmitteci on March 4, 2017, and responds to the Planning Commissioner's direction from the August 24, 2016 Public Hearing. SUMMARY OF ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES: Since the August 24, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, LP Acquisitions has been meeting with the neighbors and interested parties, and we initiated a comprehensive effort to redesign our Projer.t in response to both the Town and neighborhood comments and concerns. Based on the feedback we received from the Planning Commission and the neighborhood, we revised the architecture to Incorporate the following key design modifications: We combined the former twb (2), two-story buildings into a single, two-story building thereby resulting in a 9,000 square foot reduction in floor area, and a redaction in overall heights by 5.5 feet on the north side and 6.0 feet an the south side of the new building when compared to the previous two buildings. Other changes include: n 1.0 'rilustrate the reduction in the Luildirng massing and size, the original design was 1,614,290 cubic fret ref") and the proposed redesign is 1,207,665 cf. Therefore, we reduced the building size by 25%. 535 Midd10104.1;toad, Suite t90. Menlo Park, CA 94025 1650.326 1600 l%hl3EOi'f' . 3 APPLFCAFVT RESPONSE LETTER o We relocated the office building to the rear of the site, against the setback lines on Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd, (Route 9) and the on -ramp to Highway 17. This accomplishes two very important Foals:1) allows for s!gnificentiy more open space on the Alberto Way frontage to the building, which Is utilized for additional surface parking and amenity space. and 2) enhance the views of the existing trees and mountain behind the building, when viewed from the properties on the other side of Alberto Way, • We shifted the building by an additional 10 feet away from the north property line, in response to concerns from the Las Cashes neighbors which borders the Applicant's property to the north. The reduced building size, along with a reduced parking ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area, results in a 58-space reduction in the overall parking count from 390 parking spaces to 332 parking spaces. in response to the Town and neighborhood concerns regarding the former design's lack of surface parking, we increased the surface parking count from 7 to 42 harking spaces. The overall parking reduction also results in a significant reduction in size of the underground parking garage (which we retained) thereby accommodating all construction staging on site, instead of in the street. We replaced the proposed building foundation with a concrete superstructure In order to significantly reduce the building height by 5.5 feet on the north side and 6.0 feet on the south side. Consequently, the revised building footprint preserves the views of the existing trees and mountains behind the building, when viewed from the properties on the other side of Alberto Way. We also eliminated the tower elements in response to the Planning Commission and neighbors' concerns that the elements were too prominent, and we eliminated the second -floor exterior balcony on the north (Las Casitas) side of the building. All second -floor exterior balconies now face Alberto Way thereby enhancing the design hierarchy of the building to create more definition between the ground and second floor design elements. LP Acquisitions retained the Mission style architecttre which maintains the small-town flavor of other, nearby commercial developments in Los Gatos and resembles the massing and scale of the other existing buildings in the immediate neighborhood. Lastly, and in response to both the Town and neighbor concerns with respect to traffic and safety on Alberto Way, and consistent with the Town's Complete Street Ordinance, we are proposing to dedicate a portion of the site for the purpose of widening and straightening Alberto Way, allowing for the addition of both a bike lane in front of the property and an extended right turn lane onto Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (Route 9). We have identified locations fur detached sidewalk improvements on both the Alberto Way and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (Route 9) street frontages, and are proposing to install new curb, ramps and crosswalk et the Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (Route 9) to the ifighway 17 on ramp. We have addressed the Town's and neighbors' concerns regarding the project through the design modifications summarized above and further discussed in ARC TEC's letter dated March 2 APPLICANT RESPONSE Left 16, 2017. The proposed modifications described above are feasible and represent minor revisions and clarifications to the overall project description that will not add significant new Information to the Town of Los Gatos 401-409Alberto Way Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This information will not require recirculation of the EIR because the proposed modifications will further lessen Impacts that the Town previously found to Ix Iess theresignificant. Further the changes incorporated into the Project would not involve a new significant environmental Impact, a substantial increase in the severity of a prior environmental impact, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that we declined to adopt and that will clearly lessen any protect impacts. No information provided in our submittal indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or condusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the FIR, SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER DIRECTIONS TO l HE APPLICANT FROM THE AUGUST 24, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING: The following summarizes key comments from the Manning Commission followed by our response to the comment referred to es, the "Applicant Response." Thomas O'Donnell (Chair) 1. Requested a 1/3 reduction in the size of the building. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The Applicant's proposed redesign of the office project red+tices the size and mass of the building by combining the two former buildings into a single building (a/k/a 405 Alberto Way). The smaller single building redesign provides less floor area and would result in further setting back the building to the rear setback allowed by the Town. Also, we reduced the building's overall heights by 5.5 feet on the north side and 6.0 feet on the south side, and we eliminated the tower elements. Consequently, the overall size of tl+e building expressed in cubic feet has resulted in a 25% reduction. Additionally, the following facts support our redesigned office project; 1) the current Class A office vacancy rate in Los Gatos is et or near O% (see attached exhibit "Colliers Los Gatos Office Class A Snapshot"); therefore, there is ago enormous demand for more Crass A office in Los Gatos; 2) Due to the high price of land and construction costs, it is not finencially feasible for LP Acquisitions to develop an office project of less than 83,000 square feet on this site. For example, the parking structure costs alone exceed $12 million dollars. When coupled with the land price, the land acquisition cost and the parking structure together result ir+ a development cost of $615 per square foot, Thls cost does not include other development costs associated with grading and excavation, and on -site and off --site Infrastructure. Lenders typically expect a 129i+annual lease payment on total costs for the lender's own risk calculations in order to decide whether to invest In a commercial office project. With a 12% annual lease payment, the rent would need to be $6.15 triple net lease (NNN). In the Los Gatos office market, rents are closer to $4.50 NNN which would result in a return below 9`Y%. With a return below 9% and the development costs associated APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER with this project for an R3,000 square foot building the revised Project is barely at the threshold of feasibility. Any further reductions in project size compromise the likelihood that IP Acquisitions will be able to secure a lender for this project. Accordingly, LP Acquisitions found that the 83,000 square foot building Is the smallest sized building that feasibly could be developed and still meet the bask project objectives, while incorporating the design changes requested by the Planning Commission and the public. D. Michael Xane (Vice Chair) 1. The new office project should be similar (in architectural style) with surrounding neighborhood per Community Design Element ("CD"), Section 1.4 APPLICANT RESPONSE: As there is no prevalent commercial architectural style in the immediate surrounding neighborhood as discussed at the August 24r" Planning Commission meeting, we redesigned the proposed project to promote the small-town atmosphere "feel and image", and so that the building complements the existing commercial centers consistent with the maintenance and design of a small-town Class A office center. Specifically, tho project vernacular Is of a mission -style architecture and the building incorporates various design elements of the Hotel Los Gatos and Palo Alto Medical Foundation building located on Los Gatos Boulevard. -[he Town's Architectural Consultant approved the proposed architectural style as in keeping with the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines. 2, Develop traffic safety measures: a. For vehicles turning from Alberto Way onto Saratoga- Los Gatos Road (Route 9) westbound — cars are driving too fast down the hill under existing conditions. APPLICANT RESPONSE LP Acquisitions is proposing to incorporate the Town's Complete Street Program into the Project circulation system, For example, the Project includes detached sidewalk along Saratoga -Las Gatos Road (Route 9) in order to create a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles exiting onto the Hwy 17 onramp_ The sidewalk will Dead to on ADA compliant ramp that viill allow pedestrians to cross the Hwy 17 onramp with the use of a striped crosswalk as shown on Sheets AI.0.1 and C2.0 of the Mardi 9, 2017 Revised Plan Set submittal package. To address the existing conditions, the Town could consider installing a speed feedback sign on the hill. b. Look into installing traffic calming measures on Alberto Way, APPLCiANT RESPONSE After the August 24, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing, the LP Acquisitions project team met with Public Works and Planning an September 2, 2011i to explore various options fur traffic calming measures on Alberto Way and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (Route 9). Per the Town's Public Works Department, LP Acquisitions would need to comply with the Town's Traffic Calming Policy_ Traffic calming is 4 LPACQ,JJS1TIONS !um_ ESTATE D/.VI1.0PM1- i1' Juno 13, 2(16 Jennifer Amer, A1CP, Associate Plattner Town of Los Grains 110 East Main Strtmt Los Gatos, CA 95030 3 -•\QTT- c�;wihr�rf c�— Re: 401-409 Alberto Way Draft IiIR - State Clearinghouse Number 201512204I Dear Ms. Artner: Thank you for the opportunity to soh nit comments on the above -referenced 401-409 Alberto Way Project Draft Iinvirunmental impact Report ("Draft I31R"). We appreciate the Town's thorough review of LP Acquisitions' proposal office development and submit the following comments regarding the Drell 1?1R's analysis of the above -referenced project for the Town of Los Gatos' ("Town") consideration. Background round Our property consists of au approximately 2.15-acre parcel located in the northwest canter of Los Gatos Saratoga Road and Alberto Way (the "Site"). The Site is bordered by a wooded strip of land and an on -ramp In northbound State Route 17 to the west, u multi-liamily residential development to the north, and multi -family housing,, commercial space., a hotel and restaurant arc located to the east across Alberto Way. As the Draft EIR explains, we arc proposing to demolish the existing 31,000 square foot office buildings and replace them with two new two-story office buildings, totaling 91,965 square tcct, over a two -level, beluw-grata parking garage (the "Proposed Project"). the Proposed Project is designed to provide the type of high -quality. Class A otkice space that will attract businesses seeking "A" space to stay in Los Gatos or relocate to Los Gatos (see Revived Pehroary 11i, 2016 Lefler of JuxIflen/k,, attached to this letter as Attachment A). General Comments We have designed our Project so that the proposed dcvelopnienl is sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood ant! addresses each atud every potential impact up font as part of the Project. Consistent with this goad, the I)rafl EIR concludes that the Proposed Project would not result in -my significant environmental impacts. We noted that the Drat). FUR included a review of alternatives to the Proposed Project. perhaps because EIRs often describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a Proposed Pxojuct. According to Chapter 6 in the Draft MR, the alternatives considered in the analysis roust (1) "feasibly attain" must of the basic objectives, and (2) avoid or substantially lessen any of the Mirlrlltti, k! Road. 5rr11:rr. 118. Me010 Park, +r.A 94035 t 650.3.6 16(1:' ;sw ;.OR74357+; 2 Jennifer Armer June 13, -2016 Page 2 Significant effects of the proposed project. 11 is our understanding that the purpose of an FJR alternatives analysis is to determine whether there is a feasible way (ocher than the Proposed Pruject) to uehi4,ve the basic objectives of project while avoiding or lessening significant impacts. In light of our undershooting of the purpose of aft EIR alternatives analysis, we have two concerns about the Draft T IR's analysis of alternatives which we would like to highlight for your consideration, first, we thought that an EIR was meant to identify alternatives that avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental impacts of the Project. As the Drab MR concludes, there arc no significant effects of the Piuposcxl Project. Since there are no significant impacts, we are unclear as to why aali alternatives ,riuilysis was even included in the Draft EIR. Since the Town,prcpared an alternatives analysis in any event, it would be helpful if the SIR were revised to clarify that the alternatives analysis contained in Chapter 6 was provided for it arnraririnal piirfmses only, because the Proposed Project did not result in any significant impact; warranting idesntification of an alternative which would suh+atantially lessen the Project inipacts. 1°or example, the FIR couid include an introductory paragraph un page 6-2 stating that the alternatives analysis is being provided for in brmalionai purpose.). only andior to aid in understanding how oriels that are already identified as less than significant would he minimized further. Sccond]y, regarding the 1)rafl F1R's identification of alternatives, we note that the 1;11: included alternatives which would not achieve the basic project objectives, Although the Draft r.l It note, this is the cuss as to both No Project Alternatives, the Draft 1sIR did not provide only explanation as to whether the Reduced Project Alternative achieved the Proposed Project's objectives. On page 6-7, the description of the Reduced Project Alternatives does not discuss how the reduced total c4inanlcrcial square footage number was derived and on what basis the evaluation. has been made. For example.. out page 6-9, the Draft Fi1R lists ail 11 ofthe Project objectives and concludes on page 6-10 that the Reduced Project Alternative is consistent with all of them. 'Then the FIR indicates thaat the Reduced Project Alternative conceptually atects twist, if not till ol'the project objectives, and "it is conceivable that this alternative could be considered teasil'ty compatible with proposed site plans and design for the paopo ed project," ever. with u reduction in square footage. The Draft EIR doles not explain how the '[own reached this eonc]usion. In fact, for the first live Project objectives and the tenth objective, the ,Reduced Project Alternative would only partially meet the specified project objective, Vt?bile the site would be redeveloped with a smaller prc+ject, the cost u1'all of the high -quality architecture and design Features would be spread over a smaller amount of square footage thereby making these improvements costlier than the Project would experience with its greater square footage. Regarding the sixth through eighth objectives, while the Proposed Project will he able to fund the installation of pedestrian oriented space. groves of trees and enhanced bicycle ilia pAiestrian connectivity. such features will be fintitecl un the property under the Reduced Project Alternative. Additionally_ the redevelopment of the poiperty may not fully realize a net positive fiscal impact 525 Michell/ fleto Nod. `rit'P 1 II-, MPnk Pnrk, CA 94e;25 4 650, 32G,1 a4rir3 .. ACQUISITIONS UAL LsrArF r)iaVHOPMI NT November 7, 2017 Ms. Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Phone: MOB) 354•6872 Email: jar'mer@losgatosca.gov RE: 405 Alberto Way Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application 1J-15-009 APN 529-23-018 Thank you for scheduling the above -referenced project for the upcoming Planning Con•rmisslon hearing on December .1.3, 2017. We are pleased to submit our revised plans for 405 Alberto Way in response to I:he Town Council's direction from its October 3, 2017 meeting. PROJECT srAT Us 1.P Acquisitions, LLC submitted the following applications: Architectirre and Site Application .2- 1.5-056, Conditional Use Permit Application U-1.5.009, and Environmental impact Report E1R-16, 001 for a request to demolish three existing office buildings and the development of a new, two-story office building with below -grade and at-gracle parking (the "Project") on the property formerly identified as 401 409 Alberto Way (405 Alberto Way) (the ''Site ). During the Planning Commission's review of the Protect, we made quite a few design changes to address the Commission's and public's comments. Such changes were considered higllligllts sand were received positively by the Planning Commission. For example, we replaced the proposed building foundation with a concrete superstructure in order to significantly reduce the building height by 5.5 feet on the north side and 6.0 feet on the south side. We also eliminated the tower elements in response to the Planning Commission and neighbors' concerns that the elements were too prominent, and we eliminated the second -floor exterior balcony on the north (Las Casitas) side of the building. All second -floor exterior balconies face Alberto Way thereby enhancing the design hierarchy of the building to create more definition between the ground and second floor design elements. LP Acquisitions retained the Mission style architecture which maintains i:he small-town feel of other, nearby commercial developments in Los Gatos and resembles the massing focus on the ground floor and the human scale of the other existing buildings in the immediate neighborhood. 535 Ki ttllali kI Road. Suite 990, Meao Park, r:A 94025 l 650326.16m) APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER And in response to both the Town and neighbor concerns with respect to traffic and safety on Alberto Way, and consistent with the Town's Complete Street Ordinance, we are proposing to dedicate a portion of the site for the purpose of widening and straightening Alberto Way, allowing for the addition of both a bike lane in front of the property and an extender{ right turn lane onto Saratoga -Lora; Gatos Road (Route 9). We identified locations for detached sidewalk improvements on both the Alberto Way and Saratoga -Los Gatos Roar! (Route 9) street frontages, and are proposing to install new curb, ramps and crosswalk at the Saratoga -I os Gatos Road (Route 9) to the Highway 17 on ramp. F irtally, we included a signal interconnect between Alberto Way/Los Gatos -Saratoga intersection and the Los Gatos Blvd/Los Gatos - Saratoga intersection to expedite traffic flow and to improve safety. After two years of processing and revising the Project to further reduce the size of the Project and provide for these design changes, the Planning Commission nonetheless denied the Project at its May 10, 2017 meeting on the basis that the Project was still too big. Following the May, 10, 2017 denial, we appealed the Commission's action to the Town Council to review and overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the Project. At its meeting of September 19, 2017, the Town Council accepted public comments on our appeal and began its deliberations regarding the Project. While the Council appreciated some of the revisions and cfesign features incorporated into the Project to further reduce the square footage to 83,000 square feet ("the Second Redesign"), the Council ultimately deckled on October 3, 2.017 to remand the Project back to the Planning Commission due to the receipt of additional information and with a request to further reduce the size of the Project to 74,260 square feet ("the Third Redesign). We are submitting a Third Redesign of our Project plans to respond to the CounciVs direction to further reduce the size of the Project and provide additional design changes as further addressed below. All of the previous design changes remain In the design plans for the proposed Third Redesign. SIJMMARY OF ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES: Since the October 3, 203 1-I owe Council meeting, LP Acquisitions initiated a comprehensive effort to redesign our Project for the third time in response to both the Term and neighborhood comments and concerns. Based on the feedback we: received from the Town Council and the neiglriaorhood, we revised the architecture to incorporate the following key design modifications: We reduced the Project to 74,260 sf in accordance with the Council's direction and reduced the building massing to achieve e further reduction in the size and scale of the building. LP Acquisitions and ArcTec met with the Town Staff on October 9tt1 in order to obtain their input and direction in the redesign process. As part of this effort, we presented the additional building size reduction, and Planning Department staff indicated that LP 1 APPIICANT RESPONSE LEiTER Acquisitions' Third Redesign plan would be consistent with the E1R's Reduced Scale Alternative of 74,260 square feet, p The proposed 74,260 sf Project would reduce the overall parking spaces from 332 to 298, which is a reduction of 30 garage parking stalls and 4 surface parking stalls. The reductions in garage parking stalls results in a smaller building footprint with a corresponding reduction in excavation. The reduced excavation results in commensurate reductions in the cost of earth movement and off -haul during the construction process. Please see the attached "Revised Project Construction Export Details for 405 Alberto VI/ay which indicites that the proposed Third Redesign will now require an estimated 50,671 cubic yards of cut and all construction staging can occur on site. According to the general contractor, the rough order of magnitude (ROM) savings for earth movement and off -haul alone would be as follows: Contrite structure savings (reduced SF): Basernent+elevated cleck+-Podium = 11,517 SF x $45/SF v $ 518,265 savings offhaul savings (reduced volume): Basement (5,105 SF x 22 ft - 112,3:10 CF / 27 C.F/CY = 4,160 CY x $35/CY = $ 145,600 savings Miscellaneous basement savings (shoring, waterproofing, MEP/F): basement+elevated deck+Podium = 11,,51.7 SF x $30/SF $ 345,510 savings Reduced square footage for the building Shell: Building recluced SF 8,740 SF x $2S0/SF = $2,185,000 savings With all of the reductions in square footage and reduced grading and off -haul, the Third Re - Design would result in a reduction in costs of approximately $3.2M to $3.5M. Consequently, with the reduction in grading and connstriictivn costs, the Third Redesign would be feasible. The' Third Redesign preserves 38 of the 42 at -grade parking spaces. The Third Redesign reflected in the 74,260 square foot building shifts the building away from the northern property line by an additional 30 feet (56 feet in total, taking into consideration the 15 feet required setback plus an additional 1.1 feet proposed from the Second Redesign earlier this Spring); consequently, the additional building reduction of 8,740 sq. ft (83,000 less 74,260) an the northern side of the property now provides for more expansive mountain view corridors that will be visible from both the street and adjacent properties across Alberto Way. The Third Redesign also creates more open space on the northern side of the building fora large dog park and an amenity area for tenants and visitors. 3 APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER Lastly, the Third Redesign repositions the building entrance to the center of the site allowing the surface parking to he placed more evenly throughout the Project site than under the prior design. This repositioning also creates more open space at the southeast corner of the property for an additional amenity area open to tenants and visitors. The cumulative design and redesign modifications we have proposed over the last 24 months are designed to t espond to the Planning Commission, Town Council and public's comments. The proposed modifications described above are feasible and represent minor revisions and clarifications to the: overcall project dese.ription that will not acid significant new information to the Town of Los Gatos 401•409 Alberto Way Draft and Final Environrnerttal impact Report (EIR). This Information will not require recirculation of the EIR because the proposed modifications will further lessen impacts that the Town previously found to be less than -significant a reflected in the EIR`s discussion of the Reduced Scale Alternative. Further the changes incorporated Into the Project would not involve a new significant earvironrrae:ntal impact, a substantial increase in the severity of a prior environmental impart, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that we declined to adopt and that will clearly lessen any project impacts, No information provided in our submittal indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the FIR, SUMMARY OF COUNCIL DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANT FROM OCTOBER 3, 2017 PUBLIC HEARING The following summarizes key comments from the Town Council and members of the public that were received after the Council meeting, followed by our response to the comment referred to as, the "Applicant Response." Town Council Comment: Provide an open space easement/public space (PAPS) for both the flog area on the north side and the new area on the south side adjacent to the parking lot; Applicant Response: LP Acquisitions agrees to provide open space / ptrblic- space for a dog area on the north side and an additional new open space area on the south side adjacent to the parking lot available for use by the tenants and the public/neighbors on an informal basis. Town Council Comment: Reduce square footage to EIR alternative level of 74,260 square feet. Applicant Response: Please refer to the summary of architectural changes set forth above. As indicated in the summary above, the reduction in square footage is consistent with the DR Reduced Scale Alternative teaitainect in the FIR. Consequently, the EIR fully evaluated the envirorrrerrlal impacts associated with the Third Redesign proposal. Town Council Comment: Use Viewglass or similar product to create automatic dimming of t he glass in the evening to meet neighborhood light standards 4 APPI.ICANT RESPONSE LETTER Applicant Response: Tile Third Redesign includes Vicwglass for building window treatment in order to maintain privacy and reduce lighting impacts to nearby residents. Town Council Comment: Try to do something with the entry. Applicant Response: Please refer to the revised east elevation. The main entry retains the elegant two-story element :and canopy over the main entry doors to help identify the main entry of the building. The entry has been further improved by providing a more symmetrical look on either tide of the r-laid entry element. E.gLral•sinn"d punched window openings are located on the ground and second floor on each side of the main entry and the dimension of the two-story vertical walls on each side of the main entry are now identical, The change in the main entry design provides fora more easily identifiable main entry and also better frames the main entry than under the Second Redesign. Town Council Comment: Recess the window further on the second floor to create detail, Applicant Response: The northern facade of the building has been pulled back one full column hay (30 feet) on the north side so the window line is now further away from the northern property line that abuts the neighboring residential property to the north. Recessed punched windows and trellis features at each punched window opening have heel' retained from the previous design. As the building is now narrower when viewed from Alberto Way, the repetition of windows on each different facade element has been reduced, giving the building a more elegant look and feel from the prior design. Town Council Comment: f)esign and build the building to LER) Gold level; Applicant Response: The site and building will be designed to LEED Gold equivalency. 'fawn Council Comment: increase tree siring in the front to shield the building sooner from the neighborhood. Applicant Response: Please refer to the revised landscape plans, We Increased the tree sites in the Second Redesign in several key locations along the Alberto Way side of the building. Town Council Comment: Provide a condition to allow overflow parking in the surface lot area in off• -business hours. Applicant Response: LP Acquisitions agrees to a condition of approval allowing for nearby residents to use the Project surface Int parking spaces after business hours. Town Council Comment: schedule weekly traffic meetings during construction. 5 APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER Applicant Response: The Third Redesign reduces the size and footprint of the underground parking structure with a corresponding decrease in the cyan II parking count by 344 spaces. The reduction in the footprint of the structure and the rcirresponding reduction in parking spaces provides for an area on the Project site to serve as construction staging, in accordance with the Planning Commission's request in the Second Redesign of the Project. The on -site construction staging area reduces thEJ amount of export off -haul during excavation. Please sec the attached "Revised Project Construction Export Details for 405 Alberto Way" and "Revised Project Construction Details for 405 Alberto Way which further describe the revisions. Additionally, the proposed Construction Plan, which will he formally submitted for review by the Town Council during the permit review stage, provides for weekly construction E1larlilgerrlent meetings with the neighbors. Fowler Comment Letter: Describe the expected hours for potential tenants. (Fowler letter) Applicant Response: The proposed loners of operation for tenants in the building are from Tana to 6pm Monday through Friday. Fowler Comment Letter: Provide information regarding the "high demand" for Class A office space in Los Gatos. Where is the demand coning from, Los Gatos or elsewhere? Applicant Response: The current Class A office vacancy rate iii Los Gatos is less than 1.5 5, :as indicated in the report generated by Colliers_ Please see the attached "Colliers Los Gatos Office Class A Snapshot". Such a low vacancy rate indicates that there is an enormous demand for more Class A office in Los Gatos. The Tech industry is driving the increased office demand in the Silicon Valley with an emphasis on bringing jobs close to housing. Fowler Comment Letter: Explain why the project objectives could not be met by a building less than 83,000 square feet. Applicant Response: We provided extensive inforrnaation in our pricer correspondence to they Town explaining why the 74,2..60 square foot building was determined to be infeasible. With the further adjustments to the building design and reduction in excavation, we have been able to substantially reduce the costs of consti rrctiorl for the 74,260 scllrare foot building so that it would be feasible from a cost and technological perspective as further explained above. Town Council Comment: Please clarify the Caltrans encroachment permit process and when Caltrans will provide input regarding the proposed improvements within Caltrans right-of-way. Applicant Response . In the attached fetter darted November 1, 2017 (the "Hexagon Letter'''), Hexagon summarizes the Caltrans encroachment permit process. The proposed widening of Los Gatos -Saratoga Road with the offsite improvements requested by the Town Council will encroach on Caltrans right of -way, and will therefore require an encroachment permit from Caltrans. Caltrans submitted its comment letter dated June 13, 2016 to the f)FIR (see attachment to the Hexagon Letter). Pursuant to Caltrans' Encroachment Permits Manua!, in to APPLICANT RESPONSE LEITER order for Caltrans to approve the off -site improvement along Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, LP Acquisitions rnust apply for an encroachment permit froin Caltrans. Once the Project is approved by the Town Council, the Prnjerl will submit an encroachment permit application with the design plans and specifications to Caltrans for its review. In its review of the application, Caltrans will work with the applicant and Town staff to review and finalize the design plans, After Caltrans approves the design plans. Caltrans will issue an encroachment permit for the construction of the offsite improvements. Town Council Comment: Prepare a brief explanation of how the transportation and circulation and parking issues were previously Evaluated ili the EIR for the project. the 83,000 sf revised plan, and the rethiced scale alternative and the 74,260 sf project would not result In new significant impacts. Applicant Response: Hexagon prepared several technical fetters addressing the Project's traffic impacts and the impacts of the 83,000 square fnot buildings reflected in the Second Redesign. Hexagon's letter to the Town was peer revised by the Town's traffic consultant and determined to be adequate. Further, since the 74,260 square foot Third Redesign is consistent with the Reduced Scale Alternative evaluated in the EIR, the Third Redesign would not result in any additional traffic impacts compared to those previously evaluated for the Project. Town Council Comment: Provide technical information as necessary to address the geotechnical aspects of a smaller building footprint and parking garage and how this was addressed in the FIR and subsequent peer reviewed geotechnical reports. Applicant Response- ENGEO previously prepared an extensive design -level Geotechnikal Evaluation for the Project, which was peer -reviewed by AMEC Foster Wheeler. ENGEO's response letter to the peer review comments was accepted by the Town and was used by the Town's EIR consultant to support the analysis in the Town's EIR. The EIR evaluated the geotechnical issues far the proposed Project, and the reduced scale alternative. Subsequently, ENGEO provided responses to public coo nients es a part of LP's Supplemental Responses Letter dated as of May 9, 2017 with regard to the 83,000 square foot revised plan. ENGEO's coninients were peer -reviewed by AMEC, and AMEC concurred with ENGE0'S .supplemental response letter to the public comments and affirmed the feasibility of the project from a geologic and geotechnical standpoint. Pursuant: to its Supplemental Response dated November 1, 2017 which is attached to this letter, ENGEO has reviewed the reduced 74,260 square fmit proposed Project, the revised below -grade parking, and the overall reduced footprint. Eased on such reductions, ENGEO has concluded that the rOvlslons are expected to further reduce the already negligible potential impacts to surrounding properties, The geoteclniical aspects of the Project have been thoroughly assessed and the proposed changes do not result in any new significant impacts, and support the analysis contained in the EiR. Additional Fowler Comment Letter: Request for complete information about water table on the 405 Alberto Way site and more borings, 7 Af''(?I A-lN f 141.3POI\1Sf LE] 11,1,i Applicant Response - Please see ilre attached ENGEO November 6, 2r0.17Response to Public Comments. As previously stated the design grouridwatei level of 12 feet below existing grade is recommended in the project geotechnical report, which was peer -reviewed by ANMEC Foster Wheeler a4: well as the neighbor's engineering representative, GeiWer Engineering who rnnckirrecl with the recainmeirded design groundwater level of 12 foee1: below existing grade. We appreciate the Town's consideration of emir thin ti revised proposal and look 'forward to the Planning Conrmi'.ssion'S actiriu regarding Pro*c:r., at its Deceit -The; 13, 2017 eetitrg, • Sirrcc;rely, Shane Arters Principal & COO cc: Randy Lam Dan Kirby ,lolie Houston Alicia Guerra Gary Black 011ie Zhou Uri Eliahir Bob Bveche 13 ACQUISITIONS _ ," KF,AI- > S1AIF 1)EVFt.OPMFM I Revised Project Construction "Export" Details for 405 Alberto Way Updated acid Revised November 3, 2017 Based on the original design submitted to the Town. on July 13, 2016, this project required .t total of69,700 cubic yards of cut; thus, resulting in 6,970 truck trips or 8 weeks of Off haul. Then we resubmitted to the; Town on March i 7, 2017 and the i't:vised redesign required a total of53,451 cubic yards of cut; thus, resulting in apturixinn;itely 4,859 to 5,345 truck trips or 5,5 to 6 weeks of off haul, With the proposed new redesign of this project, this project wi II now rt:cluire a total cal' 50,67 i cubic yards of u+t and all e adruotion staging can occur on site. One large dump truck cat, carry 10 cubic yards or 11 cubic yawls (with a small diaper trailer); llierefare, 4,606 to 5,067 truck trips would be generated. Based on construction industry standards, 200 loads Ft clay would Bike 23 work days plus a few more days for the potential oFslow production. 'There tore, it is reasonable to expect that the total export of50,671 cubic yards would take 23-26 work days, M-17 or4.6 to 5,2 weeks, `t results in an ailditional reduction of t week ofoffhaul. See attached haul routes. In conclusion, our proposed size of tht structure has now been reduced to 74,260 sf and the below grade parking garage l ias also been red mod too. The redesigned ned project is also refen-cd to as the Cilt's Rcxluced Scale Alternative. We estimate that construction exportioU'haul to he approximately 5 weeks, down front b weeks. C35 Micldlefiebt Prof ,', (IICe IV11, Mr-rilr, Park, CA 9402S 1550 26160o 1 • • tt pi Grins . 1.1p. P.; t * I a, Gai roomy) AS10[10 1p AC JIS 'I(.3N g RFAL. r5Tn'rL I)I:VFLOPmF.NT Revised Project Construction Details for 405 Alberto Warr Updated and Revised November 3, 2017 General Conslructit,re'(irnellne: • Project construction will occur in a single phase with construction cunmeenc1ng fn Summer 7f11i3. • All construction staf;int; to occur on sitF!. • The Constnrctdon tirnnframe is 1.4 to 16 months including all phases from the start of demolition to the completion of all site work. • Strict Safety measures will he implemented (l.e. minimum of 2 flagmen positioned on Alberto Way Burin; grading anti crarrstrui:tirarr, and vvockJy Community Meetings open to all residents) will ensure rapid Ingress/egress of emergency vehicles on Alberto Way and open communication of all Construction processes to residents. Site Grading: • The project will require excavation and shoring to accommodate rr 2-story underground parking structure, M See attached export details and route neap of dump -truck travel. • 'The General Contractor will implement Dust Control Measures which meet the Town standards. • Estimated timeline for excavation, grading and shoring is 2.75 nitrnths. Underground Garage Construction: • This phase will include digging footings, preparing the pact, dnstalliiig drainage and undergrounding, anti waterproofing. • This phase will also include installation of rehar and structural materials to accommodate the concrete floors and sines of the parking structure. The top of the parking structure will be the foundation of the building. • Our General Contractor will work closely with our Structural, Civil and Gentet•hnical engineers to incorporate the highest construction standards to meet building Codes. • Estimated timeline fur this phase is 4 months, Core jyShell Building Construction: • This phase will include structural, flooring, skin anti roof. • Ali connections to public utilities. • Estimated timeline for this phasn is si to 7,25 moieties. Slle Work: • On -site finished hardscape, concrete sidewalks and paving, • Landscape including all trees anct plants. • Outside meeting area arbors and doff park. • Estimated timeline is 1 to 2 months. Offsite Work: • This work will ire done during the Core & Shell work noted above, • Estimated timeline for completion Is concurrent with Core &. Shell. Completion of CanstrrAction • This project is estimated to he completed by late Fall 2019. MONTHLY SNAPSHOT cos 0005 GISIMIA AvV111,14 SOROS re,/ TergE 07,..-.. sarimst t•••VC• Stmts.:or zonable 07tailar* %MO. ora.1- :,•,.e 1.,01.. *.r• C.3, Ote-avrq CtrunAlr. nier S77 ir I"A'r SAW 1,A-7' ' IA' , 'i.-. tL7 LT '' 1St 7.777,7: • -.7.,. : .. .3r • ....„„ t, s:.• orr.st: ,rro- 7 Pv7 7 "7". c -.74 : 3:`, 30: /c - -VA ;VA'. 637-14: 77 7/04 An,' 7 337.1 C ' in a v:7% .VV.e.fien ' er7 : :SS e 47 e 3 23: 1,P5', 1"0.07777 t ....- sr.:- . M7'4 016.0110 g4e-7, ' . .. . • ' " 0 72/XY. elitUrt 74•3 71.5.'" 6 ' . 2 2 0 UV% WNW !•s:-.! C ' . : 7,..-Ce ETV 3-1351. .5515.3.6 Ai - ...Iv...! • • T. .T.T aTST 1Z-717 IS:SArit 3 -1317111.441.71ableSpect Rote ..0s Gait* ochre 30,6ccrtite7 303.03.1 ,,.....„. "ea zn.lct le— Cirass Mt Ater.r.trort Abet' Onarlr" WA .3..7..,.1...- '-• ,• .- "- `777 17:73C7'..•2. AAl4el36c01_ 1a27vvV7.302733, 0.0 00cu'.0rl'e m0lo4c3: -- 5,'•6060 - 7,- -:" .1 t -. -L -4tr Pa %.,- 2I 4-iT ,g,.? 2f...77 6 i 5 .- 2/47,41. ' /5'.5 7rt ^2" -I : 6 .63:73 -15,71 0-el le le,""tv. ; ^ Tv ZVS 7...Z1S :.:',7.17 rAwS art.14 .5321•IT cee.-77 7/07.7. 4007 Vero" Jus4v .A2.17 Prer.17 era-17 Zee,' -/- It.tt 7,10.41, ,7477749 Jm17Frt-7: ;vv. yct..77 iM? 4111.-410" 47.711. , .00 Sinn 1:77iss Wri0771)62 '4recos0 Ar.kicv Pint: gOblepttt, luargro ;ale '15" "v Sett 41" A.7643.1-zwel &refuge Asking 733e-s CI,Ti M.7.4 305,1 .75-r=r Lell*" 0,13•1• rirrr archeralwri.5.15,1f,q1,..la lOrmillis trarr.0.4. PM OW ilittrY strwrm-tr,...41 myna, le bk. Imi -- PLXAION TDANSPWATION (011911011i, INC November [, 2017 Mr. Randy I_amh t_rtrrab Partners 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 1JO Menlo Park, CA ,1025: Sailbjcatf Overview of alii •atr : Ertcro rc:I i ellt Permit Process tor C).fI Sipe frafrsrotrcat uts IDerar Mr. Lamb; I-te rig©n Transportation Consultants, Inc, has prepared this letter to provide r highlevel overview of the CerItrans rinr rofichmertt permit process for the off -site improvements proposed by the 4O1•• 4O l Alberto Way office project in Los Cantos, California. Al the request of Town staff, tine project proposes to widen Los Gettos••Sarefogrr Road (Highway J) rrlorig Its frontage, to provide room for future bike lanes, and to rebuild the sidewalk as a c t€tchod walk. Those improvements win require an encroachment permit from Caltrans because they are in the Caaltrans right-of-way. CEaltrans provided a comment letter on the DEIR (dated ,June '13, 2016, see attachment), which showed these improvements, and appeared to be in support (at least they offered no objections), In fact, Caltruns requested that the project further enhance pedestrian .safety by adding flashing{ beacons to the crosswalk that crosses the northbound Highway 17 on -ramp from Los Gatos Saratoga Road. Per Caltraans Encroachment Permits MErmrai , the. process for Oalimrtw approval of the oft -site improvement along Los Gatos -Saratoga Road is that the project, once approved by Town of I_os Gatos, submits an encroachment permit application with design plans to Caltrans, C:a'trans will work with tho applicant and Town steff to review and finalize the design plans. When the, design Watts are trfl{1roved ray Callrarr , an rsrtt,roirr.;turzent pe;rnait he issiJ :d for tho ocrnstrt.rt.ti[rn, If you have any questions, pease do not hesitate to call. Sir rceroly, l•I ](AGOM'TRP.Nr3PC)RI"A`t'Iow CONSUL 'TJaNT , INC. 74) Gary K. Block President Allan rnror d: 40 409 Albe do V/try Gffk o Devolopoknit l'n:.jt':ct Draft letavirurrrn+=r'rf,'r! hr wool Report; written by Pf tricie Maurice, dated June •13, 2046. Son websml , htlti:J_Iwww.clrtt.ca,;,gr ,/t.raffigr1.r±s/00 rn;;rritrcuf.hl.rril, teessed rnr hlnvr:n tser 20'17 k, 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 • sat) Jose, California 95113 • phone 408.9 /1.5100 • fax 408.971.G101 • Www.4rextrans.rorrr Jun 13 2016 3:25P11 1IP LRSERJt:T FF1X p t 7 L DIlALIIIQAt it-CALJPrlRAtp,4 2S-1011040.: Jr rai:rd et DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA.T1ON t31STIUCT 4 r'.0 61OX 23660 • OAKLAND. CA 9462341660 PHONE (516) 286.5518 FAX (510) 2.24.5554 7TY 711 w4e'1+, dat.co.sv Rine 13, 2016 Ms, Jennifer Amer Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos i 10 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear ME. Armer: SJrious Draught. Help saw. SCLVAR063 SC:L/VAR/PM VAX Sabi 2015122041 401.-409 Alberto Way Office- Development Project -- Draft Environmental impact Remit Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above -referenced project. Cal trans' new mission, vision, and goals signal a modernization of our approach to California's State Transportation Network (SIN), in which we seek tea reduce statewide vehicle miles traveled (4rMT) and increase non -auto modes of active transportation. Caltrans plans to increase non -auto mode shares by 2020 through tripling bicycle, and doubling both pedestrian and transit. Also, these targets support the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which promotes the increase of non -auto mode shares by ten percentage points and u decrease in automobile VMT per capita by ten percent. Our comments are based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEER). Please also refer to the previous comment letters on this project said incotporated herein. &O},eel Understanding The proposed project is located immediately adjacent to the northbound on -ramp from State Route (SR) 9/Los Gatos Saratoga Road to SR 17 in the northeast quadrant atilt interchange, it would demolish the existing 93,500 Square -foot (sf) general office complex and replace it with a 93,500 6fgenera,l office complex, Access to the project site would be provided via two driveways located on Alberto Way. LeadAgency As the lead agency, the Town of Los Gatos (Town) is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to State highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, s :heduling, implernentatiou responsibilities a.nd lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. Arot+y+regrore.'i 6Ml e,,f7nd l lrculAdellatiC, iySNr, 10 whoa( California's and It�cEalltry'- Jun 13 ?pet; 0:25PM HP LFIEER7Et Vfk M. Jennifer Armer/Town of Los Gatos June 13, 2016 Paget Traffic Impacts 1. This development will add trips greater than one percent of capacity on southbound SRI? during AM end PM peak hours, so will significantly impact the STN and require mitigation. For example, the northbound (NB) SR. 17/Saratoga. Los Gatos Road diagonal on -ramp and the southbound (SB) SR ] 7/Saratoga Los Gatos Road loop on -ramp have existing ramp metering equipment installed and are to be further metered in the future with metering rates typically between 240 and 900 vehicles per Dour, These additional trips will significantly impact the capacities of these ramps. 2. A closed circuit television (CCTV) camera, ramp metering, and other traffic monitoring are installed in the area of the Saratoga Los Gatos Road (SR 9) on -ramp to NB SR 17.. The proposed development has the potential to impact these installations, particularly the conduit which runs to the service connections at Alberto Way. Please refer to the As -Built plans for EA 150264, 151364, and other relevant EAs and field verify locations of the installations and connections, as existing conditions may have changed (e,g., the recent Bridge Rail Replacement Project, EA 1A3404). Vehicle Trip Reduction Caltrans encourages the City to locate future housing, jobs, and employee -related services near major mass transit centers with connecting streets configured to facilitate walking and biking. This would promote mass transit use thereby reducing regional VMT and traffic impacts. 1. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs should be documented with annual monitoring reports by an onsite 'IDM coordinator to demonstrate effectiveness. Suggested TDM strategies include working with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to decrease headway tinges and improve way -finding on bus lines to provide a better connection between the project and regional destinations and providing: • Secured bicycle storage facilities. • Fix•it bicycle repair station(s). ▪ Bicycles for employee uses to access local resources, • Amenities, access and connections, incorporate wide sidewalks - • Shnwers, changing rooms and clothing lockers. ▪ l47 percent vehicle: parkins; reduction. • Carpool and clean -fuel parking spaces. • Transportation and commute information kiosk. • Outdoor patios, outdoor areas, furniture, pedestrian pathways, picnic rind recreational areas. • Nearby walkable amenities. • Membership in a transportation management association • Kicksofi'commuter event at full occupancy. • Employee transportation coordinator, • Transit subsidies and/or transit passes to all employees. • Emergency Ride Home program. 'Provide a anfa. snsiqmaide inreyrufc d and lainsporfution a}+rtnu fo enhance Calearnla S LOOM and lnohfliry Jun 43 Fels 3: 2SPct HP LHSkKJET Irfi}t r Ms. Jennifer A+rner/Toth of Los Gatos June 13, 2016 Page 3 • Transit and trip planning resources. • Carpool and vanpool ride -matching support, Bicycle route mapping resources and incentivize bicycle parking, unbundling of residential parking, and providing transit parses acidior transit subsidies to residents. These smart growth approaches are consistent with the MTC's Regional Transportation PlanJSCS goals aaad would meet Caltrans Strategic Management Plan. The project will increase pedestrian demand and proposes to reconstruct the curb ramps and sidewalks, as well as stripe a new crosswalk, at the eastbound Saratoga Los Gatos Road to the NB SR 17 on -ramp. Caltrans recommends the new crosswalk consist of high -visibility, ladder -style markings. The project developer should also coordinate with Caitrans and the Town to provide a rectangular rapid flashing beacon at this location, in order to increase motorist awareness of pedestrians crossing the roadway. Tile project proposes to provide 395 parkin spaces, although a development of this scale and scope is required to provide 372 spaces according to the Town's municipal code. In order to discourage driving, thereby reducing VMT and impacts to the STN, we recommend that the project consider a reduction in parking supply. Reducing parking supply can encourage alternate forms of transportation, reduce regional VMT, and lessen future traffic impacts on SR 17, SR•9, and the STN. Please refer to "Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth," a MTC study funded by Caltrans, for sample parking ratios and strategies that support compact growth. Traffic fnrpa ct Fees Given the project's contribution to area traffic and its proximity to SR l 7 and SR 9, the project should contribute fair share traffic impact fees to the planned SR 17 ramp metering, fitture auxiliary lanes, and other improvements to SR 17 and SR 9 to mitigate these impacts. These contributions would be used to lessen future traffic congestion end improve transit in the project vicinity, ifattuatary Contribution Program We encourage the City to participate in the VTA's voluntary contribution program and plan for the impact of future growth on the regional transportation system. For example, VTA is interested in studying the SR 17 corridor and securing funding for the study. Contributions by The City funding regional transportation programs would improve the transportation system by reducing congestion and improving mobility on major roadways throughout the San Francisco Bay Arca. Traffic Control Plan Since it is anticipated that vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic will be impacted during the construction of the proposed project requiring traffic restrictions and detours. a Caltrans- approved Traffic Control Plan (TCP) is required to avoid projoct"related impacts to the SIN The 'ICP must also comply with the requirements' of corresponding jurisdictions, In addition, pedestrian access through the construction zone must be in accordance with the Americans with "P►urrd4. u.tgfi, lirrrulnvple, totagreWddogf 1cNntirrnupormrr<.rs .ta.! tear to enttemcc Califmxrin 7 ero.oras} ow, h ithtllty" u6 :4 : 25P 1 11tf Lf1 -ERJE F FftX 4 M. Jennifer Anner/Town of Los Gatos June 13. 2016 Page 4 Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations (sec Caltrarts' TernporaryPedeslr/an Facr!(tia Nrrtrdhook for maintaining pedestrianaccess and meeting ADA requirements during construction at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construe/safety/Temporary _Pedestrian jaciIities_Handbook.pdf) (see also Caltrans' Traffic Operations Policy Directive 1 1 -01 "Accommodating Bicyclists in Temporary Traffic Control Zones" at: wwAv.dot.ea.gov/hgfaftops/policy!11.•OI,pdf). All curb ramps and pedestrian facilities located within the limits of the project fire required to be brought up to current ADA standards as part of this project. For further TCP assistance; please contact the Caltrans Iistrict 4 Office of Traffic Mnrragement Operations at (510) 286-4579. Further traffic management information is available at the following website: wwttr.dot.ca.govIliggraftopskrefmgmtltmin_ ndex:him. Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches unto the State right-of-way (ROW) requires an encroachment permit that is issued by Calirans. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentatiod, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW must be submitted to: David Sul luday, District Office Chief, Office of Permits, California Department of Transportation, District 4, P,O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660. Traffic -related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans prior to the encroachment permit process. See this website for more information: wwvv,tiot.ca.govlhq traffops/developserv/permits. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please ;contact Brian As]nir€t at (510) 286- 5505 or brien.ashurst r@}i dot.ca.gflv. Sincerely, PATRICIA MAURICE District Branch Chief Local Development - lntergove_ninental Review c: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse Robert Swierk, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) — electronic copy Robert Cunningham, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) —electronic copy "I'AnInk.a riff. r+wiednoOM. wrrgrdrod nod Illreffni Osoapcilurinn ayrreen ru a,ilirm,ce Calfivrnlnconosy and Doll -". .P(. rr.-va cl' November 2, 2017 Ms. Alicia Gt terra Buchalter Feiner 55 Second Street, Suite 1700 ,ion Francisco, CA 94105 Sul,ject: 401-409 Albei 10 Way I os Gatos, CalIfornin NOVEU BER St.OPPL 'MENIAL RESPONSE Dear Ms. Guerra: GEO1't'C! INICAI ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Pruject No, 12175,000.(I00 At your request, we prepared this supplemental response latter for your pi jj t:t at 401-409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos, California, Specifically, we are responding to petenfiaai project modification, and related geotechrIical it'gl'rlS. We previously prepared a design -level geotaachnical report for the project (Reference 3), which was peer re.viewed by AMEC Foster Wheeler (AMEC, Reference 1), Our response letter to the AMEC peer review comments (Reference 4) waas 7ccepted by the Town of Los Gatos, We subsequently prepared a supplemental response -to -comment letter (Reference 5), which was also peer reviewed by AMEC (Reference 2). As stated in Reference 2, AMEC concurred with our supplemental response letter to the public comments and affirmed the feasibility of the subject projoct froth ra geologic and fleotechnical standpoint. We understand the proposed size of the structure hes ban reduced to a arpproxirnately 74,260 square feet. In addition, the below -grade parking has also been reduced and the footprint of structure has been pulled into the site increasing tilt: diekenne between the structure and property boundary, These revisions are ere/or:led to furthor rodrrco tic already negligible potential impoct to surrounding isroperties. The geotechnical aspects of the project site have been tttciioughly assessed) end the proposed changes do not result in any new significant Impacts arm Support the analysis contained In the EAR for they project. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, ploaase (Jo not hesitate to contact US. Sincerely ENCEO lit orporated Knelt 13oec4, CEG Uri Ellahi.i, GE Attachmei it: t Y__ p,. .Iiw. • _S-ktar Scott Joluis, Ile Selected Referees SULJECT >'t] ATTORNEY DIREC,'!'IONeAT1' iRNEYWORK I'RO[)ULA 6399 Sni, inn ark, Avenue, Suite 150 ' Sam Mee, C:f\ 95119 (40,1) 574-4900 ^ Fax {t e12 O-26 a M M^iII.fJ'kj�yf I.U1ilt 11 GEC) Oiled t_'x,: oS1riifcr St LECT tt FEFERNNCES 1. AMEC; Peer Review Gecjtec:tmical Pxploretion Report; 401 Alberto Way, Ins Gatos, Caron iio; Novoinhar 4, 2015, AMEC Project No. 0084491960. 2. AMEC Foster Wheeler; Geotechirical Peer Review; 401 409 AI i :rtrs Wray, L.n Gatos, California; April 28, 2017_ AMEC Project No. 084491960, '.. ENGEO; (eolechuical Exploration; 401 Albeit° WRy, Los Galas, California; ,truly 17, 20-I5 (Revised August 13, 2015). != IN(EEG Project No. 121 5.000.000, 4. ENGEO; RezipolIse Io AMEC Foster Wheeler Peegr Review Comments; 401 Alberto Wxry, Los Gates, Cali€orui2r; January 11, 2016, ItiNGEO Project No 121175.000.000. ',. ENGE(7; Supplemental Response to Public Comments; 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, Califon ita; April 'U1, 2017. ENGEO Project No. 121175.000.000, 6UL1JLCTTOATTORNEY DIflECllON -.A'I V0RNr:'r VVO I<I'ltiO0lJL I '12175.000 000 November 2, 2017 -xp�,rt J`. rrc�Iitit3G� �' — November 0, 2017 Ms. Aida Guerra Buchalter Nemar 55 Second Street, Suite 1700 San Ernncisrc;n, CA g410 Subject: 401-409 Abertra Wry Los Gatos, Califor rile NOVEMBER 6th RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Dear Ms. Guerra: GECTE C t IN ICAI.. ENVIRONIVIENTAI WATER RESOURCES JftiCES CONS f RUCTION SERVICES Project No. 12175.000.000 At your request, we prepared this sulaplemerrt¢r1 reslninse letter fur your i,>rojer,d at 401-409 Allaerto Way in Los Gatos, California. Ms. Loretta Fowler, Secretary, Committee on Alberto Way Development sent two enislls to the: Town of f..oe Grates, atlention Jemiila, Armor, between November :3 and November 5, 2017, titled :'Request for complete Information about water table on the 405 sites." Our response to Ms- Fowler's comment is us follows: Ms. Fowler Crotrrinonl 1 We at The Commons request that now borings be made on the 401409 Alberto Way site and the readings provided to us and to the Planning Commission. In its initial report, ENGEO failed to address the question of wirol1Jcrr lire neighboring properties would be arivc:rsely affected by the excavation oft two level underground garage on that site. The ENGEO report of 7/17/2015 stated that three cxploretoay borings were dome on tV7.7 but data on the writer table was given for only the two boring sites on the south side. We have reason to believe that the wester table is much higher on thu north t'nri of the: site, and we want the water table readirrci5 tl rem which will rook e new boric rge, This is a very scar taus issue Attr the neighbors on Alberto Way and we believe ENGEO has not con virlcft rgly addressed it, Per r reviewer Amoc' l=Ostor Wheeler rl'ld not catch this problem even though or.rr expert Dr. Peter Geissler pointed it out, Before the next Planning Corrnnission hearing, we would like the 'frown In require that these borings on the; north side of the silo be done and the readings frorn them produced to document the depth of the water fable. We residents of AI.boto Way flew/ Mal our properties are at risk rand neither the developer's agent F. NG20 nor the town's peer reviewer wer has given clue;} consideration to our concerns. Thanks for looking into this, Jennifer. We have a ciiiluront take. Figure 2 in ENGEC3's Appel utl>ti C does show the borings; B3 on the north end and B I w cl 2 on the south error of the site. In the fkarirrg l.ncys In Appendix A of ibis report 13 I went clown 15 reel and urrcorialert-0 no groundwater. B2 went dam; farther and at 21 feet encountered groundwater: But 133 dirt not measnre depth to groundwater due to "caving when rernovin ; autyf rs. "As t said, we ere keptic.&i ;.--Ind our concern is bolstered by the Santa Clara Distract Water map; for the area, So, we would like a new boring and readings from tire north part of the silo, where tbNGF'U says there is potential for liqueetbatioo, by (he way. StUf .JEC'i 10 ATTORNEY iRJ=!EY I.fRECTItatd OI-tf lE1`'V ORK F'1' Uf}tit I 6.390 San Inutedu Aawiu ire. S1110 ISO `:4111 Jn_n, t Wit Ifr - (408) 574AM 4 fear (kW) 27,12698 Buchalter Nemer 401 10g Alberto Way, Los Gatos NOVEMBER 611' RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ,LNGE.O Response lc Cemmegt 9 'I 2175.000.000 November G, 2017 Page 2 ENCEO responded to a similar comment in April 2017 (Rcforenco 5). As previously stated in Reference. 5, tho design groundwater level of 12 fr,ot below existing grade recommended In the project geoteclanicar report represents a historic high groundwater level obtained from maps published by the Slate of California, Thu California Stele neaps used in design incorporates data provided by the Santa Clara Valley Water District es well as additional sources. Because the project Incorporates historic ric high groundwater levels in deasigia, and not the dF:oil r than historic groundwater depths observed during drilling, additional borings as requested by the commenter aro not required. Peer reviewer AMEC Foster Wheeler and the neighbor's engineering representative, Geissler Engineering (Reference 6, Executive Summary and Groundwater Hydrology sections), r oncurre(1 with the recommended design groundwater level of 12 feet below existing grade. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely ENGEO Incorporated P(6bert H. l3be�chc, CEG Kan, GE rhl hij/jklrit Attachment: s. la r4 w \ IM )itt; Selected References Scott vIctms, PE SUBJECT' TO AT TOMMv DIRECTION) --ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT ';ELECTED RE:F Rrl CIFS oi Eul r./ krrnrev.:e 'I. AIv1EC; Peer Review - Geotec:lvaloal Exploration Report; 4.01 Alberto Way, bras Gatos, California; Nraventor 4, 2015, AMf?C Proje;c)t No, 008440'1980, 2. AMC.:Efoster Wheeler; (ac;otuclrnic al Peer Review: 01-409 Alba' to Way, Los Gatos, California; April 28, 20'17. AMr c Projciet No. 0841401980, ENDED; Geotec,iuiir•.;cal Exploration; 4 )1 Atari() Wray, Los Gatos, Cailk'mIa; duly '17, 20'15 (Revised August 13, 20'15). ENGE() Project No. 12175.000,000. 'I. ENGEC: Response to AMEC Foster Wheeler Freer Roviow Contn'tc nts; 4011 Alberto Way, Les Gatos, California; January 11, 2018. ENGEC) Project No. 1217fi.000,000. 5. IENGEO; Sa)p lienaental Response to Public Comments; 401-4100 Alberto Wray, l..r:;; Gatos, California; April 19, 2017, ENGED Project Ni.r12175.000.000. 0. Geissler Engineering; Hychoroio(ty Report; 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gates, California, 95032; dated IV irch 31, 2017. E.tl,3JECT-if rAITORNEY Utr2EC,T101`)•-ATTORNEY I Old'. PRC)f7t NY I217b.0U0.0tiC) Novi:rnbr:r b, f 0 17 ••:.41, 'TOM RAA. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION CIAGRAM • ;-LAO PERSOk 'Aft1.4 RADIO NOTE StAiJEC" TO FURT14ER REFINFAIENT A PAT Or PROJECT ORR MENEM` PUNS OR BOUM PER PATS AVJSON VO LJ N G intelligent Real Estate Solutions December 27, 2017 Mr. Randy Lamb Lamb Partners 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190 Menlo Park, CA 94025 RE; Planned Los Gatos Office Building Dear Randy: 2000Slevery Cteei: Baukvbrd Suite 200 San lose, CA 95'128 USA T .10a.377.4300 F 4089133)913 avisnrlyt)t4ng.ccnn Thank you for the chance to write this letter to you with my opinion of current floor plate sizes for new Class A Office buildings in Silicon Valley. I have leased and/or sold over 3 million square feet of new Class A office space in Silicon Valley over the past 5 years and understand what today's High Tech tenants are looking for in these new buildings. Today's newly constructed Office buildings have 35,000 to 40,000 sf per floor, which is desirable to tech companies because there is much more useable open space than the floor plate sizes of the past (15,000 to 20,000 sf). The problem with the smaller floor plates are the lack of larger open areas because of the buildings core in the middle. The core would include elevators, elevator lobby's, restrooms, stair wells, and utility closets, which then would only leave you with approx. 8,000 to 10,000 sf of useable space in a donut shape. Today's larger plates allow for everything to be in the core and then have large open bay depths for cubicles and interior offices and conference rooms up against the core leaving the window line open to everyone. If you looked at all of the newly developed Class A office product, you will find that 95% or higher have these larger floor plates (35,00b to 40,000 sf) because they are much more functional & efficient and allow today's tech company to provide a collaborative, open environment for their employees. Please let me know if you have any questions and am always available to help in any way. thank you, Gregg von Thaden Principal & Managing Partner Avison Young (408) 913-6901 direct G regg.vonthaden@avisonyoung.com 150 West Santa Clara Streel San Jose, CA 95113 WWw colliers OOM January 2, 20l S MA •a +1 408 282 3800 +1 40 292 8100 Mr. Randy Lamb 535 Middlefield Road, Suite t90 Menlo Park, CA, 94025 RE: Planned Office Building in Los Gatos Dear Randy: Collie rs I` -1.;ANA •J,., 1 You have asked me to provide a letter with my professional opinion regarding floor plate sizes of Class A Office buildings in Silicon Valley. Floor plate size varies depending if you are in an urban setting vs. a city setting. One thing for sure is over the past ten plus years all floor plates regardless if they arc urban or city have been getting larger and larger. All -new construction I have witnessed in the Silicon Valley as of late has tried to maximize their floor plates given the cost of land as well the loss factor of the building infrastructure (restrooms, elevators, common area and stairs). The smaller floor plates (25,000- 30,000 sq. ft.) become very inefficient given the loss factor of the earlier mention infrastructure. 'Tenants today are passing on the smaller floor plate sizes. Today, the ideal floor plates arc ranging from 35,000 sq, ft, up to 42,000 sq. ft, and sometimes higher. A larger floor plate allows for an efficient layout of space for etnployees, cubicles, conference rooms and open collaboration, We have become more efficient over the years in the use of office space. 'Today tech companies want collaboration areas and open environment and the smaller floor plates (25,000-30,000 sq. ft.) cannot provide the use and will be passed over for the larger floor plates (35,000-40, 000 sq. ft.). Please let me know if you need additional information, 1 am happy to assist. 'Thank you, Justin M. Reilly Sr. Vice President Colliers International Justin. R ci I ly@Colliers.com eaporulinilemranpaq.doiflake-microm.liawendowsdnckencl.ocnncmi.Dualoo&Nellgd lb1 risk Ii Illy F02..I1411001 The CAT ('Community Area Transit") Shuttle Service Information Sheet • Proposed Operation Hours: M-F from 10:30am to 3:30pm; and for a few special events in Los Gatos each year • free public shuttle for everyone —available for Neighbors, Residents, Tenants and Visitors Reduces Traffic and alleviates the stress of finding limited parking in downtown • Ride for free, shop in Town, avoid parking and support the local merchants • See Shuttle Stops Map for pickup and drop-off locations This supports the General Plans Sustainability program to have "fewer vehicle miles traveled" Shuttle service is a standard form of TDM and is often used as a mitigation measure to further reduce trip generation c• ekk t ASateW=cly Wolgreens Qi 3 Parking "dot 3A _- rit 3. Cr aAt J a Old Town Los Gato Ff. Corm�u!nity area Trc�rt Et artShutt � A Shuttle Stop Los Gatos High school £Mahn Street A Masonic Hall New Museum Los Gatos Los Gatos Town Park Plaza E. Main Street iA405 Alberto Way dos Gatos /iv rift rib gt I-1XMOH TAMSOTAUON CONSULTANTS, INC Draft Memorandum Date: September 12, 2017 To: Shane Arters, Lamb Partners From: Gary Black 011ie Zhou Subject: Traffic Analysis of the Proposed Downtown Shuttle Service for 401 Alberto Way Office Project Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a traffic analysis of the proposed Community Area Transit Free Downtown Shuttle Service in Los Gatos, California. This shuttle service is being proposed as part of the proposed 401-409 Alberto Way office development located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. The shuttle would be available to the public and is proposed to run with a 30- to 45-minute headway between 10:30 AM and 3:30 PM on weekdays as well as on a select number of weekends. The shuttle would depart the proposed office development at 401-409 Alberto Way and travel clockwise eastbound on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. southbound on Los Gatos Boulevard/Main Street, northbound on Santa Cruz Avenue, eastbound on Andrews Street, southbound on University Avenue and eastbound on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road (see Figure 1), The shuttle would stop at the Masonic Hall, Town Hall, Los Gatos Town Park Plaze, Downtown Los Gatos and the Walgreens and Safeway on Santa Cruz Avenue. Based on the proposed 30- to 45-minute headway, it is anticipated that the shuttle service would provide 6 to 10 roundtrip see/ices through downtown Los Gatos between 10:30 AM and 3:30 PM. Assuming a maximum 30-person capacity for the shuttle, this free shuttle service could potentially serve a maximum of 300 passengers (30-person capacity with 10 roundtrips) per day. While most of the passengers are expected to be future employees at the proposed office development, it is anticipated that some residents along Alberto Way would also utilize this shuttle service, thus reducing the number of vehicle trips between Alberto Way and downtown Los Gatos. Residents in downtown Los Gatos could also ride this shuttle to the Walgreens and Safeway on Santa Cruz Avenue, and employees on Main Street could also ride this shuttle to downtown Los Gatos during lunch time. Assuming 20% of all passengers were induced to make the trip because of the shuttle service (meaning they would not have made a trip without the shuttle service), the remaining 80% of the passengers (maximum 240 passengers) would have made the trip by driving their own car otherwise. Assuming 80% of the passengers that were making the trip regardless of the shuttle service are future employees, and employees travel in pairs (two per car), the shuttle service could eliminate a maximum 96 vehicle trips per day that would have been made by employees at the proposed office development driving to downtown Los Gatos. Assuming the remaining 20% of the passengers that were making the trip regardless of the shuttle service are local residents, and residents drive alone, the shuttle service could eliminate a maximum 48 vehicle trips per day that would have been made by residents driving to downtown Los Gatos. Therefore, assuming a 30- minute shuttle headway and the shuttle has a 30-person capacity, the proposed shuttle service could eliminate maximum 144 vehicles per day. There would also be comparable savings in greenhouse gas emissions. 4 North Second Street, Suite_ 400 - San Jose, California 95113 • phone 408.971.6100 • fax 408.971.6102 • www.hextrans.cam This Page Intentionally Left Blank