Staff Report
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Town Attorney, Community Development Department Director, and
Finance Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/19/2017
ITEM NO: 12
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-15-056, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT APPLICATION U-15-009, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EIR-16-001. PROJECT LOCATION: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY.
PROPERTY OWNER: CWA REALTY. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: LP
ACQUISITIONS, LLC.
CONSIDERING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DENYING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH THREE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDINGS
AND CONSTRUCT A NEW, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH BELOW
GRADE AND AT GRADE PARKING ON PROPERTY ZONED CH. APN 529-23-
018.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal of the Planning Commission decision denying
Architecture and Site application S-15-056 and Conditional Use Permit application U-15-009.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is an approximately 2.15-acre parcel developed with three, two-story wood
frame multi-tenant office buildings with on-grade parking and daylighted basement areas. The
existing buildings on the site were constructed in the mid-1960s and comprise approximately
31,000 square feet. The existing buildings on-site are 24 to 35 feet in height.
The project vicinity contains a multi-family residential development located to the north of the
project site. Multi-family housing, office, and a hotel are located to the east (across Alberto
Way). A hotel is located across Los Gatos – Saratoga Road to the south of the project site and
an on-ramp to northbound State Route 17 is located west of the site.
PAGE 2 OF 9
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\09-19-17\401-409 Alberto Way\Staff Report - Alberto Way Final.docx 9/14/2017 2:24 PM
BACKGROUND (Continued):
The Planning Commission considered the applications on August 10, 2016, and August 24, 2016.
The applications were continued to October 26, 2016 with specific direction from the Planning
Commission. The project was then continued to January 11, March 22, April 12, and May 10,
2017, to allow the applicant additional time for revisions, responses to comments, and
outreach with the neighbors. On May 10, 2017, the Planning Commission denied the
applications, as discussed in more detail in the Discussion section of th is report. The decision of
the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant on May 19, 2017 (Attachment 17).
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.280, the appeal must be heard within 56 days of the
Planning Commission hearing; however, the applicant waived the 56 day appeal period. The
Council must at least open the public hearing for the item, but may continue the matter to a
date certain if the Council does not complete its work on the item.
If the Council determines that the appeal should be granted and that the Planning
Commission's decision should be reversed or modified, the Council must make one or more of
the following findings, in accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
1. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or
2. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not
readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
3. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or add ress,
but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
This Code section also states that if the only or predominant reason for modifying or reversing
the decision of the Planning Commission is the availability of new information as define d in
item 2 above, it is the policy of the Town that the application will be returned to the
Commission for review in light of the new information unless the new information has minimal
effect on the application.
To support the finding(s), the Council must also identify specific facts for incorporation into the
resolution (Attachment 20 if remanding to the Planning Commission or Attachment 21 if
granting the appeal).
DISCUSSION:
A. Project Summary
The proposed project is the redevelopment of the project site with the demolition of the
existing buildings and the development of a new office building that would be consistent
PAGE 3 OF 9
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\09-19-17\401-409 Alberto Way\Staff Report - Alberto Way Final.docx 9/14/2017 2:24 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
with the zoning and General Plan designation for the site. The project is planning to attain a
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification.
The proposed project would create a new two-story office building totaling 83,000 square
feet with 290 parking spaces in a two-story below-grade parking structure and 42 parking
spaces at grade for a total of 332 parking spaces. Amenities and site improvements for the
project include bike storage, new landscaping, and a variety of energy efficient and/or
sustainable interior and exterior building elements.
The proposed building has a front setback of between 63 feet and 125 feet along Alberto
Way; a side setback of 26 feet bordering the residential development to the north; and
street side and rear setbacks of 15 feet along Los Gatos – Saratoga Road, and the CalTrans
property along the Highway 17 on-ramp.
The proposed building would be a maximum of 30 feet, six inches high at the top of the
highest mansard roof. Building materials would consist of painted stucco, limestone tile,
bronze window frames, wrought iron guard rails, dark bronze canopy and trellis, and clay
tile mansard roof. A color and materials board will be available at the public hearing.
The story poles have been updated to reflect the modified building design that was
presented to the Planning Commission on May 10, 2017 to show the location, general
massing, and height of the proposed building. The revised poles and netting were re-
certified on August 30, 2017, after the poles and netting for the initial proposal were
removed.
B. Planning Commission
On August 10, 2017, and August 24, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the project
and continued the project with specific direction that the applicant consider modifications
as described in the April 12, 2017 Staff Report (Attachment 10) and summarized here:
1. Building Size: The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the applicant to
significantly reduce the size of the building in height, mass, and floor area.
2. Design: The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the applicant to revise the
proposed design to be more in keeping with the neighborhood and small town
character.
3. Street Width/Configuration: The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the
applicant to work with Town Staff and Caltrans to consider options for modifications to
Alberto Way to include a bike lane, implementation of complete streets elements on
Alberto Way, and improvements to increase the visibility of pedestrians crossing the
PAGE 4 OF 9
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\09-19-17\401-409 Alberto Way\Staff Report - Alberto Way Final.docx 9/14/2017 2:24 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
Highway 17 on-ramp from Los Gatos – Saratoga Road.
4. Neighborhood Outreach: The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the
applicant to work with the neighbors in developing a reduced project scale and revised
design.
5. Project Elements to be Retained: The Planning Commission gave specific direction to the
applicant to keep many of the elements of the project, including but not limited to the
proposed office use, high quality building, the outdoor spaces, the underground parking,
and the LEED Certification.
6. Additional Items of Concern: The Planning Commission also expressed concerns about a
number of items without asking for a specific response. These items included the traffic
numbers and emergency access for Alberto Way residents.
On February 7, 2017, the applicant submitted revised plans which were then further revised
and resubmitted on March 17, 2017 responding to the comments made by the Planning
Commission, which included the following modifications:
1. Building Size: The applicant reduced the size of the project by:
a. Reducing the building height between five and 12 feet (see sheet A3.03 of
Attachment 10, Exhibit 36, for elevation comparisons);
b. Reducing the overall mass of the building in cubic feet (volume) by approximately 25
percent; and
c. Combining the two, two-story buildings into a single, two-story building and
reducing the floor area by 8,965 square feet, approximately 10 percent of the
previous floor area (see sheet A1.00 of Attachment 10, Exhibit 36 for floor area
comparison).
2. Design: The applicant made the following design changes:
a. Moved the proposed building ten feet farther away from residential neighbors on
the north side of the project;
b. Reduced the scale of the 401 Alberto Way building façade with additional second
floor balconies;
c. Reduced the 401 Alberto Way building façade height and increased the front setback
to 63 feet to increase views of the mountains and provide for a landscaped buffer
between the street and the proposed building; and
d. Provided a written description of the building style choice in the applicant response
letters (Attachment 10, Exhibits 31 and 33).
3. Street Width/Configuration: The applicant proposed to dedicate approximately 1,000
square feet of land to increase the width of Alberto Way and provide bike lanes. If
accepted, this dedication would reduce the lot size and result in a slight increase in the
proposed lot coverage (from 45.3 percent to 45.8 percent), although the project would
still be below the 50 percent maximum lot coverage allowed in this zone. The applicant
PAGE 5 OF 9
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\09-19-17\401-409 Alberto Way\Staff Report - Alberto Way Final.docx 9/14/2017 2:24 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
has retained the complete streets elements previously proposed, including separated
sidewalks. The applicant has retained the previously pro posed improvements that
would increase the visibility of pedestrians crossing the Highway 17 onramp, including
reconfiguration of the crosswalk.
4. Neighborhood Outreach: The applicant worked with the neighbors while their redesign
was developed and held four open house outreach meetings on January 30, 2017 and
March 20, 2017 (two on each day), as described in applicant’s response letter
(Attachment 10, Exhibit 31).
5. Project Elements to be Retained: The applicant proposed:
a. Increasing the number of parking spaces in the surface parking lot from 7 to 42
(adding 35 parking spaces);
b. Reducing the number of parking spaces in the underground parking garage from 383
to 290 (removing 93 parking spaces); and
c. Reducing total number of parking spaces to match the minimum required for the
new building size from 390 to 332 (removing 58 parking spaces).
6. Additional Items of Concern: Staff has confirmed that the traffic numbers in the traffic
impact analysis comply with standard traffic engineering practices and that the Santa
Clara Fire Department has no concerns about emergency access during or after
construction. The applicant asked its traffic consultant, Hexagon Transportation
Consultants, to specifically address these concerns. These concerns are addressed in a
letter, dated April 6, 2017 (Attachment 10, Exhibit 35) which has been reviewed by
Town staff.
A revised story pole plan was prepared and approved. In an attempt to show the reduction
in size from the initial proposal to the revised proposal, the applicant installed the new story
poles with blue netting (showing the revised plan) while leaving the previously installed
orange netting (initial plan) in place. The new netting was certified on March 20, 2017.
On May 10, 2017, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the project due to
concerns regarding the project’s overall size (both massing and floor area); the two-level,
below-grade, parking garage; compliance with the Community Expectations section of the
Commercial Design Guidelines; traffic and emergency vehicle access concerns; and
consistency with the General Plan.
The verbatim minutes for the May 10, 2017 meeting are included as Attachment 16.
C. Appeal to the Town Council
On May 19, 2017, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town
Council by the applicant (Attachment 17). Supporting comments and materials were
PAGE 6 OF 9
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\09-19-17\401-409 Alberto Way\Staff Report - Alberto Way Final.docx 9/14/2017 2:24 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
provided with the appeal. The reasons for the appeal are listed below, followed by staff
comments in italic font.
1. The appeal identified that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion in
that the decision was not based on subst antial evidence; that there was information
provided to the Planning Commission, but not considered by the Commissioners in their
decision; and that the project complies with all of the development requirements and
the Planning Commission did not have discretion to address only certain guidelines and
policies in the Commercial Design Guidelines and the General Plan as adopted by the
Town Council.
The Planning Commission was provided and considered all of the materials described by
the appellant and the Commission’s discussion included both the objective and subjective
standards that apply to this discretionary project.
The applicant noted that the proposed project meets the objective standards of the
Zoning Code, and was reduced in height and floor area in response to the Planning
Commission’s comments in August of 2016 to be further below the allowable maximum
standards.
The revised project does meet the objective standards of the Zoning Code. However, the
Planning Commission determined that the mass and square footage of the revised
project were not compatible with the neighborhood.
In addition, the applicant claims that the Planning Commission should have certified the
EIR before making a motion on the project, and that they never state d that the EIR was
inadequate.
A deciding body is not required to make a CEQA determination for project denial.
2. Although the appeal does not claim there is new information, it does express concerns
that the Planning Commission did not consider all of the information provided to them.
The appeal states that the revised project presented in the April 12, 2017 Staff Report
and discussed at the May 10, 2017 Planning Commission meeting did respond to all of
the Planning Commission’s direction from August of 2016.
The Planning Commission considered the information that was provided and determined
that the revised design was not compatible with the neighborhood (massing and square
footage).
PAGE 7 OF 9
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\09-19-17\401-409 Alberto Way\Staff Report - Alberto Way Final.docx 9/14/2017 2:24 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
3. The appeal claims that the Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address the following policies or issue that is vested with the Town Council in that the
project does meet the standards and objectives of the General Plan and the Commerci al
Design Guidelines, and that in denying the project the Planning Commission only
considered one of the guidelines in the Commercial Design Guidelines and only one of
the policies in the General Plan, rather than looking at both documents in their entirety
as adopted by the Town Council.
The Planning Commission discussion included both the objective and subjective
standards that apply to this discretionary project, and focused particularly on those
items of concern listed in the appeal.
D. Shuttle
The applicant has voluntarily implemented and promoted a shuttle service in the Town in
recent weeks. It is important for the Town Council to consider the appeal of the proposed
development independent of this shuttle service.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Town Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal and denying
the project (Attachment 19).
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Council may:
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 20) to grant the appeal and remand the applications to the
Planning Commission with specific direction, determining that the Planning Commission's
decision should be reversed or modified, and finding one or more of the following, in
accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
a. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission;
b. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not
readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
c. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision; or
2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 21, includes Exhibit A and Exhibit B) granting the appeal,
certifying the EIR, and approving the project, and finding one or more of the following, in
accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
a. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission;
PAGE 8 OF 9
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\09-19-17\401-409 Alberto Way\Staff Report - Alberto Way Final.docx 9/14/2017 2:24 PM
b. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not
readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
c. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision; or
3. Continue the application to a date certain with specific direction.
COORDINATION:
The Community Development Department coordinated with the Par ks and Public Works
Department and the Santa Clara County Fire Department in the review of the applications.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Attachment 1, Exhibit 1) was prepared for the project by
the Town’s Environmental Consultant, EMC Planning Group Inc. (available online at
www.losgatosca.gov/401-409AlbertoWay). The project will not result in a significant effect on
the environment because mitigation measures have been added for Air Quality, Biological
Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazardous Materials, and Transportation and Traffic, mitigating
potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. As part of the environmental review process a
number of technical reports were prepared, including air quality and Green House Gas (GHG)
modeling, an arborist report, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, noise and vibration,
geotechnical, storm water management, and traffic analyses. Reports that were prepared by
outside consultants were peer reviewed by Town Consultants.
The Notice of Preparation was distributed on December 14, 2015, for a 30-day comment period
ending January 15, 2016. A scoping meeting was held on January 12, 2016. Comments
received are included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR.
The Notice of Availability for review of the Draft EIR (DEIR) was released on April 29, 2 016, with
the 45-day public review period ending on June 13, 2016. On June 8, 2016, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing to accept comments on the DEIR. Verbal comments were
received from one individual (who also submitted written comments). Written comments on
the DEIR were received from two public agencies and eight individuals (including the project
applicant). The Response to Comments/Final EIR was completed on June 29, 2016 (Attachment
1, Exhibit 15).
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared as required by
CEQA (Attachment 1, Exhibit 15). The MMRP includes all mitigation measures and which Town
Department(s) is/are responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is properly
implemented. All mitigation measures are also included in the conditions of approval
(Attachment 21, Exhibit B).
PAGE 9 OF 9
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\09-19-17\401-409 Alberto Way\Staff Report - Alberto Way Final.docx 9/14/2017 2:24 PM
Attachments:
1. August 10, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 2-16, Exhibit 1 was
previously distributed under separate cover on June 16, 2017)
2. August 10, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item Report (with Exhibit 17)
3. August 10, 2016 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (146 pages)
4. August 24, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 18-19)
5. August 24, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item Report (with Exhibits 20-21)
6. August 24, 2016 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (120 pages)
7. October 26, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 22-23)
8. January 11, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 24-25)
9. March 22, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 26-27)
10. April 12, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 28-36)
11. April 12, 2017 Planning Commission Addendum Report (with Exhibits 37-38)
12. May 10, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 39-42)
13. May 10, 2017 Planning Commission Addendum Report (with Exhibits 43 -44)
14. May 10, 2017 Planning Commission Addendum B Report (with Exhibit 45)
15. May 10, 2017 Planning Commission Desk Item Report (with Exhibit 46)
16. May 10, 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (164 pages)
17. Appeal of the Planning Commission decision, received May 19, 2017
18. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. Wednesday, May 10, 2017 to 11:00 a.m. Thursday,
September 14, 2017
19. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and deny the project
20. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
21. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and approve the project (includes Exhibits A and B)
22. Project Information Sheet, prepared by the Parks and Public Works Department
Distribution:
Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC, 535 Middlefield Road, Ste. 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025