The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 04TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: August 18, 2016 PREPARED BY : APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: APPLICANT/ CONTACT PERSON: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICATION SUMMARY: EXHIBITS: Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner j armer@ lo s gatosca. gov Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 Environmental Impact Report EIR -16-001 401-409 Alberto Way (Located on the northwest corner ofthe intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. The westerly rear ofthe site is bordered by a wooded strip ofland and the on-ramp to northbound State Route 17. Access to the project site is provided on Alberto Way.) Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC CWA Realty Requesting approval to demolish three existing office buildings and construct two new , two-story office buildings with underground parking on property zoned CH. APN 529-23-018. Previously received under separate cover: 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report Previously received with August 10,2016, StaffReport: 2. Location Map 3. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages) 4 . Required CEQA Findings of Fact (24 pages) 5 . Recommended Conditions of Approval (15 pages) 6. Letter of Justification/Project Description (15 pages), received July 15 ,2016 7. Project Construction Details (three pages), received August 3, 2016 8 . Letter of Outreach Conducted ( 40 pages), received February 1 0, 2016 9. Second Letter ofNeighborhood Outreach (26 pages), received August 3 , 2016 10. Con sulting Arborist's Report (41 pages), dated September 26, 2015 11. Architectural Cons ultant's First R eport (five pages), received September 1 0 , 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2 401-409 Alberto Way Project August 18,2016 REMARKS : 12. Architectural Consultant 's Final Report (five pages), received March 18 ,2016 13 . Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Meeting minutes, June I 0, 2015 meeting (four pages) 14. Public Comments 15. Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated June 29, 2016 16. Development Plans (37 pages), received July 15 ,2016 Previously received with August 10, 2016, Desk Item: 17. Comments received from 11 :01 a .m . on Thursday, August 4 , 2016 to 11 :00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 1 0, 2016 Received with this Staff Report: 18 . Comments received from 11 :01 a.m. on Wednesday, August 1 0 , 2016 to 11 :00 a .m . on Thursday, August 18 ,2016 19 . Applicant's Response Letter, received August 19 , 2016 The Planning Commission consi dered the applications on August 1 0, 2016. The applications were continued due to the lateness of the hour. The attached public comments (Exhibit 18) were received after distribution of the desk item for the August 10 , 2016, meeting. The Applicant has provided a letter (Exhibit 19) in response to the comments received from the public and the commissioners at the meeting on August 10, 2016 . .QXpproved by: 1 oel Paulson, AICP Community Development Director JP:JA:sr cc: Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC, 525 Middlefield Road, Ste. 118 , Menlo Park, CA 94025 N :\DEV\PC REPORTS\20 16\AibertoWay4 0 1-409 0 8 .2 4 .16 CUP AS EIR.docx Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Lo s Gatos Planning Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos , CA 95030 (408) 354-6874 RE: 401-405 Alberto Way Dear Jennifer Armer, Linda Raasch <lindalraasch@gmail.com> Wednesday, August 10, 2016 8:51 PM Jennifer Armer 401 -405 Alberto Way Follow up Flagged I have been a resident of Los Gatos for 23 years. I live on the east side of Los Gatos and use Lo s Gatos/Saratoga Road daily. The traffic issue that has percolated into a very serious issue over these past years needs to be addressed. When there is very little maneuverability within the streets of Los Gatos, we simpl y travel elsewhere to meet our needs . We are not alone. This means we spend our money elsewhere which is devastating to our local merchants. Adding more parking spaces to an expansion of 401-405 Alberto Way means simply-more congestion. The quality of life in Los Gatos is slipping away at an exponential rate. One should be able to alter their property within our town 's guidelines , but there is a "no return poin"t when we approv e more and more employees, their cars, their needs, without considering those that have diligently paid taxes and added back to our community. Where is the breaking point? I am one, in a sea of many, that love our to wn and want to share -but we are being short-sighted to our property v alues and our community by allowing more development adding 383 parking spaces needing to be filled by new employees in a 9 1,000 square foot building. Our roads are bulging at the seams. Thanks for listening. Sincerely, Linda Raasch 239 Forrester Road Los Gatos, CA 95 032 EXIDBIT 1 8 1 Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: 401-405 Alberto Way From: cecilia holmberg [mailto:ceciliashao2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 6:23 PM To: jsavage@losqatosca.gov; Planning Subject: NO: 401-405 Alberto Way Dear Ms. Savage- I am a 15-year resident of town . I live over on the east side of town so the Alberto development will not directly impact me too much on a daily basis, but I'm familiar with the intersection and I'm shocked that the developer's traffic study says that -300 cars coming and going around 9-5 will not negatively impact the traffic at nearby intersections too much. I have read the Letter of Justification, and I don't doubt that the developer has put a lot of work into developing what seems like a good project. It seems attractive and a lot of desirable "like to have's" are checked off. However, it's hard to believe that what sounds so good on paper will translate to reality. I'm not understanding how subsidizing transit passes is meaningful; are there viable public transportation options that will carry employees from their homes in the suburbs to an office in the suburbs? The site is a logistically challenging one, and its point of ingress/egress is already one to be wary of due to the short distance between the intersection of LG Blvd/Hwy 9 which is on a rise above the Alberto Way intersection, and then the freeway onramp immediately west of that. If this proposal was for retail space or a hotel, where the vehicle traffic would be sporadic and spread throughout the day, then maybe it could work, but to say that a huge mass of vehicles all arriving around 9am and leaving around 5pm won't bring traffic along all of southern LG Blvd and eastern Hwy 9 to its knees, simply beggars belief. We are being bombarded by proposals for huge projects relative to the size of our town, and we flat out do not have the transportation infrastructure to support this much additional traffic. I beg the Planning Commission to reject this project. Thanks, Cecilia Holmberg Panorama Way 1 Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: Planning meeting for Alberto Way Project From: J & J Martin Gemignani [mailto:josephgemignani@netzero.net] sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 6 :49PM To: Joel Paulson Subject: Planning meeting for Alberto Way Project Hi Joel, I wish I could make it to this meeting tonight to voice my opinion on the Alberto Way proposal. If you don't mind could you please let the Planning Commission know that I am in favor of this project. It looks like this developer really considered some of the best projects we have in Town and incorporated it into this project. I think this will be an overall plus for our Town. Thanks, Joseph 1 Jennifer Armer Subject: RE : 401 Alerto way -additional objections From: Roman Rufanov [mailto: ] Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2016 7:01 PM To: Planning Subject: 401 Alerto way-additional objections Dear Planning commission, I want to draw your attention to additional negative effects on proposed building of 401-409 Alberto way. Please see attached file for details. Thanks ! Roman Rufanov Resident at 435 Alberto Way, Los Gatos 1 Dear Planning commission , I want to draw your attention to additional negative effects on proposed building of 401-409 Alberto way. Besides Traffic impact and Safety impact (especially to small children) there are other factors to consider: Specifically: • Intensity of site use becomes 3x of what it was before . This will contribute to traffic impact and environmental impacts. Mitigation measure for both of them are not inadequate (see calculation below). • Creep of business-use buildings on the neighborhood . o This is a "crowding out" tactic where business buildings become larger and larger, tower over small neighborhood homes making all residents uncomfortable and eventually wanting to leave . o If you approve this with 3x increase in sq. footage and 3x increase in traffic-what arguments will you have to stop new construction at the end of Alberto Way at Alberto Oaks complex? They will want to rebuild with 5x of current sq footage and they will have a precedent to lean on. • Light intrusion. o Proposed building will stand several feet from property line with Las Casitos complex. o People will work late hours and light will be shining into other people bedrooms. o Proposed mitigation by "putting a balcony" is not sufficient for 2 reasons : • Balcony does not stop light from traveling • Balcony invites people to come on it and they will be looking over other peoples bedrooms at Las Casitas complex. • Noise intrusion o The noise from ACs units (cooling proposed very-large building) will be heard all over neighborhood decreasing quality of life o The same applies to 240+ new cars coming and parking at site • Health impact o As calculations [7] show the environmental impact is not "insignificant" o Adding 240 round trip per day to this complex will add following health hazards: • Hydrocarbons (HxCx)-0.6 metric ton or equivalent of 162 gallon gasoline spill. • Carbon monoxide (CO)-3.2 metric tons or 760,000 gallon of CO gas • Nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide-(NOx)-0.2 metric tons or 43,000 gallon of gases • Carbon dioxide (C02) -56 metric tons or 7 million gallon of C02 gas o Mitigation measure AQ-2 "install 4 charges for electric cars " takes care of 1% of the problem . o Mitigation measure AQ-1 (low NOx heating system) will do nothing in the summer • In winter it will be at best net-zero for the building itself (3x more efficient system but it needs to be 3x times bigger to heat all 91,000 sq feet building). • All car exhausts are not mitigated (summer or winter). The proposed mitigation measures are fu ll y inadequate. It is deceiving to say they will mitigate additional environmental impact. Air Quality Mitigation AQ-1 The proposed measure is to install low NOx heating system to mitigate environment impact. There are 3 problems with this approach . • First -mitigation impact speaks of NOx gases only. But the cars emit Hydrocarbons (HxCx), Carbon monoxide (CO), Nitrous oxide (NOx), Carbon dioxide (C02 greenhouse gas)-see [1] • Second-the efficient (or not) heating system does not work in summer (8 month inCA) so it can not offset anything during warm months . • Third -the system could be more efficient, but you will need 3x bigger heating system since you need to heat building which is 3 time larger. Since heating system does not work in summer (around 8 month in CA) we will get all additional exhaust from cars . Here are the estimates [7] what we will get from cars alone . Each of these gases has negative health consequences [2]j3] [4] [5]. o Hydrocarbons (HxCx) -0.6 metric ton or equivalent of 162 gallon gasoline spill. o Carbon monoxide (CO)-3 .2 metric tons or 760 ,000 gallon of CO gas o Nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide-(NOx)-0.2 metric tons or 43,000 gallon of gases o Carbon dioxide (C02) -56 metric tons or 7 million gallon of C02 gas Claim that efficient heating system will offset NOx emission from cars is not substantiated . As EPA table shows [8] the efficiency of the NOx emissions can be improved by factor of 3x going from small no-control units to larger efficient heating units. But the heating system output need to be raised 3x more to heat 3x larger building. The net effect of the more efficient heating units will be around zero. • So, in winter times more efficient heating system will not reduce NOx emissions • And it will not offset car emissions . All car emissions are extra and on top of existing emissions . • The way to resolve this is to reduce scope of the project to about the same square footage as today. Regarding Air Quality Mitigation AQ-2 Proposed mitigate is in to install 4 eclectic charging stations is greatly inadequate. Charging from 240V charging stating takes 9.5 hours for most popular Tesla Model S . 4 cars will be able to change per day which is about 1% of the total parking spots. Regular cars will exhaust 43,000 gallon of (NOx) gases and produce equivalent of 162 gallon gasoline spill per year in UN-burned Hydrocarbons [1] • Reduction of emission by 1% due to electrical charging stations is insignificant comparing to exhaust from 370+ regular cars • This is not a mitigation -but rather insignificant blimp comparing to expected emissions. References: [1] Car emission-https://en.wikipedja.org/wiki/Exhaust gas#Passenger car emissions summary [2] Hydrocarbon health effects http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pbs/pbs.asp?id=422&tid=75 • can affect the human central nervous system. • can cause fatigue , headache, nausea , and drowsiness [3] Carbon monoxide (CO) -http://ephtracking.cdc.gov/sbowCoRisk.action • Breathing CO can cause headache, dizziness, vomiting, and nausea. If CO levels are high enough, you may become unconscious or die . • Exposure to moderate and high levels of CO over long periods of time has also been linked with increased risk of heart disease. [4] Nitric oxide (NOx)-http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0448.pdf • Health effects: irritation, drowsiness, unconsciousness and death [5] (NO)x 0.t-Jitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide - https:l/www.environment.gov.au/protection/publications/factsbeet-nitrogen-dioxide-no2 • The main effect of breathing in raised levels of nitrogen dioxide is the increased likelihood of respiratory problems . • Nitrogen dioxide inflames the lining of the lungs , and it can reduce immunity to lung infections. • This can cause problems such as wheezing , coughing , colds , flu and bronchitis. [6] Tesla charging times -https://www.cars.com/articles/2013/11/how-guickly-does-the-tesla-model-s- battery-cbarge/ [7] Calculations (gallon of gas at room temperature and sea level): Component Emission Rate _§!!!.~~ (KG/yealj_lP_Jnsity (kg/m3) Volume (m3) Volume (Galons) --HxCx-Hydrocarbons 2.80 grams/mile (1 . 75 g/km) 438 719 0 .61 162 CO -Carbon monoxide ~0.9 grams/mile (13 .06 g/km) 3 ,273 1.14 2 ,871 760,815 (NO)x-Nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxi de 1.39 grams/mile (0.87 g/km) 218 1.34 162 43,047 C02 -Carbon dioxide-greenhouse gas 0 .916 pounds per mile (258 g/km) 56 ,376 1.98 28,473 7,545,273 Assumptions: Radius considered (miles) 0 .5 Additional round trips per day 240 Work days in year 261 Cold engine factor 5 [8] Natural Gas Combustion from EPA-https://www3 .epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf [9] Comparing cold and bot engine exhaust levels-http:Uwww.air-guality.org.uk/26 .php Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Jennifer, Thomas F. Dunn <dunn@barastone.com> Monday, August 15, 2016 4 :41 PM Jennifer Armer Rebuttal comments to alberto way project Rebuttal Letter.docx; Overview with proposal and petition ver2.docx Follow up Flagged Attached is my letter with my feedback from the august 10 meeting. Also attached is the overview and summary of concerns all4 condo complexes agreed upon and signed the petition in favor to stop this project. Thomas F. DUilll 408-588-113 4 Office 408-460-697 6 Mobile dunn@barastone.com Home Wealth Specialist vvww. barastone.com '""""v.linkedin.com/in/tldunn 1 Planning Commission My name is Thomas Dunn and I live at 420 Alberto Way . I am opposed to any development at 401-409 Alberto Way for many reasons. I do not trust Randy lamb or Shane Arters. I do not believe any words that come out of their mouths. All night at the meeting they would change their story to fit what they think you might like to hear. There is no integrity or professionalism in their 2 man company that knows nothing about Los Gatos or the Los Gatos community. They are out of towners. He has inaccurately presented to you at the planning meeting the amount of office square footage they have built, over 1 million, and the number of offices, 12, but I can only find 3 office buildings they have on their website and one of them is a drawing of the alberto way project. he's understated numerous information to residents about the time and damage it will take to excavate the property, the number of dump trucks it will take and not to mention the damage it will do to our street and possible the water pipes etc below the street. He told us 4 weeks and at the meeting he now says 3 months. He told us around 50 dump trucks and now it is more like 350 dump trucks. This is only one example of the non-truths he tells. Also the one that really gets me is at the planning meeting on august lOth he stood up and said that he had held 14 community outreach programs in our neighborhood and that over 100 people attended and no one was opposed to the project. WRONG : Everyone at our meeting and all of the other condos meetings also adamantly opposed to the project when we saw the sight poles being put up. One major concern is because of the size and mass and the bulk of the buildings and it was way way to big to fit into our neighborhood . We made several suggestions to lower the buildings, reduce the size and all he said was that he has town approval and has complied with all the requirements and he doesn't care what the residents think, they're going to build this project anyway . ALSO NO ONE is in favor of this project for all of the reasons you heard at the meeting and because of all the concerns in the summary we submitted to you with over 200 signatures on a petition opposing this project (see Attached concerns) This is not a safe place to build Safety for residents, children and the seniors are a major concern. 2 years of dump trucks, trucks with building supplies, Large cranes, heavy duty operating equipment, PGE digging up the roads, Cal trans digging up the streets is not only dangerous to us but makes no sense. (Would you want to live across the street from this for 2 years or more? His comment to us at our last outreach meeting was he wasn't concerned because the GRANNIES down street and can't make it this far anyway. All it takes is one child or senior or a resident bike riding down alberto way and to get hit or killed during construction or by the new large number of cars leaving this building it senseless. It would cause a law suit against the company and the town for letting this project even be considered ... SAFTEY FIRST FOR THE LOS GATOS COMMUNITY. To the Town of Los Gatos from l ocal residents who oppose the Architectural & Site Appli cation S-15-056 , Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 , Environmental Impact Report EIR- 16-001. Overview e Summary of concerns and objections to demolish three existing office buildings and construct two new, two-story office buildings with underground parking at 401-409 Alberto Way. • Detailed study & report authored by Bob Burke s howing why this proposed development does not conform to the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. • Signed petition from local reside nts opposing Architectural & Site Application S-1 5 -056 and Conditional Use permit U-15-009. Conc e rns Size . Mass. Bulk. and Height o f Building The proposed buildings are >3 times the size of what's there now (93,000 sq. ft. vs. 30,000) It's height is taller than any other structures in the area, and compared to the residential buildings in the area and it does not fit into the neighborhood. In addition it will take away about a dozen parking spaces on the street currently used by residents and their guests. Furthermore, we were told the number of employees the build ings can hold is 350. In reality, they are capable of holding up up to 735 with high tech companies' bull pen seating layouts. The Proposed development also removes many large mature trees & bushes, then replaces them with small ones. The buildings will ob stru ct the view of the mountains and s unset s for the residents (which is one of th e bea utiful things to look forw ard t o at the end of d ay), and is in compati bl e with th e ne ighbo rhood . Al so, many of the residents in the front of the condominiums on the street have home offices. Th e co nstruction noise and disruption will m ake it impo ssi bl e to work. Therefore the proposed development is incompatible with the character of the neighborhood and transforms it from a low impact residential bedroom community in a n open space tucked away in a wooded area to a "concrete & glass jungle" dominated by a large co mmercial space. Re du ced property valu e Big commercial building (with all the problems described above) in the closest proximity will change our status of desired cul-de-sac area and will reduce our property values. This will be especially pronounced for those owners with views today. Safety Issues: Children and Elderly With new traffic turning left to Alberto and left again into proposed new building -it will become difficult and possibly unsafe for children to cross Alberto on the way to school. Children cannot cross Alberto Way from stop light since cars are speeding to Alberto Oaks during morning and evening commute time. With potentially 325-700 new vehicles to turn trying onto Alberto in the AM Rush,, children & elderly are endangered crossing either Alberto or Hwy-9 at the signal light. Large construction truck drivers could possibly not see small children in front of them. And Alberto way does not have any other stoplight to cross at ! Traffic issues Approval of the application will foreclose the possibility of renovation or replacing the Hw-17 & Hwy-9 Intersection leaving Los Gatos with permanent congestion. The Intersection needs renovation or replacement before approval. Having a new 93 ,000 Sq Ft comme r cial building in addition to existing new restaurant, health care facility ,Best Western Inn, Alberto Oaks Office Park and four residential condominium complexes on a two lane road will significantly increase the congestion of traffic considering that there is only one way in and out on our street. Waiting times at the light will be several times increased both in and out of Alberto Way. This will also cause reduced air quality as mahy cars idling at the red light or rushing on yellow will produce additional emissions to the air we breathe. Increased traffic compromises security and safety (during the construction phase and after completion) During construction there will be sidewalk closures, so residents, (families, children, seniors), will have to use the road to walk on to go to and from school or downtown. Many cars entering and exiting the new buildings will impose additional safety risks for all that pass the building, which is the only way out. In addition we all have Health issue concerns because of 16-18 months of Noise, Dust, and Pollution during construction phase. Dear Planning Commission, RECEIVED AUG 1 6 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANN!NG DIVIS ION I am writing to you with regards to the proposed project at 401-405 Alberto Way. My hope is that you will read and consider these thoughts which focus, not so much on the logistics of this project, but rather a transpersonal view of the situation. First, let me thank you for the work and time you, and those before you, have put into making Los Gatos a wonderful place to live and do business. It is to this very legacy and good work that I speak and hope you will continue to uphold. What I see is an ethical dilemma between two opposing sets of values. One set of values regards the short term, economical benefits while the other is transpersonal in nature, more visionary, difficult to monetize, but in the long term, priceless. You have all the facts and figures of the economics of the project, and there are valid points to be sure. However, the transpersonal embraces higher than average values which include the ethical, the aesthetic, the heroic, the humanitarian and the altruistic. Let me explain. This dilemma is not new. Many before you have faced the difficult challenge to walk the fine line between the financial and spiritual well-being of a community. For example, Georges Eugene Haussmann struggled with many of the same issues you face today when he was responsible for making tough decisions about his community. Perhaps we can get some insight into what he did and why. I believe Haussmann, whether he realized it or not, leaned more towards the transpersonal. As I understand it, Haussmann chose the humanitarian when he built parks and open spaces; he chose the aesthetic when he limited building heights so as not to diminish or hide the beauty in his city; he chose the altruistic when he demolished high density living and provided decent housing for all economic classes, (the poor and middle-class were not driven out of his city because of redevelopment). Haussmann chose the heroic when he took flack for his work and vision. But if Haussmann had not been the visionary that he was, then Paris would not be what it is today. Under the work of Haussmann, Paris gained over 600,000 trees and two thousand hectares of parks and green space, so that "no one was more than a ten minutes' walk from such a park." How many trees are we taking down in our efforts to grow? "Haussmann wrote in his memoires that Napoleon Ill instructed him: "do not miss an opportunity to build, in all the arrondissements of Paris, the greatest possible number of squares, in order to offer the Parisians .... places for relaxation and recreation for all the families and all the chi ldren, rich and poor.". How many open spaces are we trying to fill with the biggest, state-of-the-art high dens ity buildings? Can you imagine a big shopping mall or a google-like office building with a two story underground parking in front of Notre Dame on the lie de Ia Cite? There 's certainly the room for it. What a great location! But just because you can, doesn't mean that you should. Haussmann chose the ethical. The beautiful churches, monuments and iconic buildings in Paris remain visible and free of the shadowing darkness of high rise structures that were not allowed under Haussmann. Those projects could have given an economical boost to the city's income but at what cost to its spirit and soul, not to mention its legacy to the Parisians and the world? What cost will our hearts and souls suffer when we can no longer see the hills or the sunset because of steel and brick constructions? Is there a park within a 10 minute walk of where you live? Los Gatos is not Paris, I know, but it is just as special. It has been referred to as the "Gem of Silicon Valley" and is a place of beauty . Los Gatos is home to a community with a living spirit and soul. Haussmann understood what we are just beginning to realize ... there is an increasing recognition of the importance of spiritual value in conducting sustainable commerce and development. I ask that you reflect on what values you believe are in the best interest of Los Gatos . What legacy do you want to leave the generations that will follow as this community's youth grow up and have families of their own? Will they be able to live here? Will there be a green space for children to play? You are devoted men and women who care about what is best for Los Gatos. So, I ask that you embrace the transpersonal values as well as economic considerations . As you explore this transpersonal perspective, I hope that you will be able to tap into that space within, where your imagination, inspiration and innovation abound, and there find a way forward that speaks to the benefit of all. Warmly, JoAn Smith "Welcome to the Town of Los Gatos: a great place to live, work, and do business! Located at the base of the picturesque Santa Cruz mountains, Los Gatos is a true gem of th e Silicon Valley" Ylrl-&\ ..... ,, http://www.town.los-gatos.ea.us/235/Doing-Business "When you live in Los Gatos you truly are home. Los Gatos residents enjoy many amenities -distinguished schools, charming neighborhoods, beautiful hillsides, limitless recreation, and great shopping and dining choices to name a few. Situated within the largest metropolitan area of northern California and closely tied to Silicon Valley, Los Gatos continues to retain its small town image ... " http://www.town.los-gatos.ea.us/Z/Livinq-in-Lo s-Gatos 401-409 Alberto Way RECEIVED AUG 1 6 Z016 T OWN O F LOS GAT OS PLAN NING DIV ISiON August 15, 2016 The project as proposed by developers is not compatible with the neighborhood. The mass of the building will block views, add serious air, noise and light pollutants and ensnarl a small residential single entry cal de sac with gridlock traffic. If this project were to move forward there would be serious difficulties implementing the construction which would have a major impact on the entire neighborhood, from children going to school to emergency services having access. My credentials are that of a construction project manager I owners rep working for large corporate clients in Silicon Valley for the past 30 years .. Point blank, this site will not support the construction of this project without a major impact on all of the homeowners and residents. I am currently working on a similar project for a large developer of similar size of 96,000 square feet, a two story office building with 210 spaces of underground parking. The site is located in a commercial business park with no residential neighbors with 3 times as much land with 2 access roads. The site being proposed at Alberto way has one access point at Alberto and highway 9, an intersection already with congestion that has a light and significant traffic. Specifically to excavate a two story 390 space underground parking garage on this site Multiple diesel trucks would be involved in demolition and debris off hauling. Excavation could take 6 to 8 weeks with dump trucks hauling 275 loads per day possibly 1400 plus loads of off haul. Concrete trucks making 4-5 deliveries per day about 200 loads per day, 10 yards per truck, 80 tons per load. The roads were not meant to support these massive construction loads and will have to be replaced and repaired. Pedestrians will not have access to highway 9 as this work will block sidewalk access for people walking to downtown. The amount of workers to support concrete pours, rebar installation and general construction will number 60 -80 at any given time and these workers will need to park somewhere. This site will not permit it. Parking these vehicles on Alberto is unacceptable. The building is pushed right up to the Alberto Way curb and has little to no room for a construction laydown yard, cranes, large trucks, site parking for workers, due to the site access at the pinch point of Alberto Way. Walking in front of the project will be a dangerous intersection of vehicles rushing to exit the site and children going to cross at the corner for school and senior residents on the sidewalk. These trucks are massive and will be continuous, blocking visibility and creating plumes of dust and particulate into the air. If they try to control it with mist and water the heavy treaded truck tires will drag mud everywhere. Clean up will need to be constant thus adding additional trucks and delays to the over taxed street and intersection. These trucks and the number of them required and the number of trips required to do this project will emit diesel and particulate, which has not been addressed in any environmental report. The street will need to be closed down to be safe during these periods of demolition, excavation, concrete and foundation work. Additionally parking 390 cars underground will have to be vented and have a major exhaust system, thus further pumping particulate into the air. This and the additional trucks to both support the construction and support the on going services of a 93,000 square foot building have not been correctly cal<;:ulated into any reports. All of these problems are worsened because of the proximity of the site exiting to the busy intersection and single entry point into Alberto Way. This project offers nothing to its neighbors. It replaces small businesses chiropractors, small law offices and other community services which are part of the community fabric of Los Gatos with a massive building that will be off limits to its neighbors creating a dangerous black hole with no positive neighbor hood interaction. People move to Los Gatos to escape the traffic and the Silicon Valley, by moving this massive commercial building with its increased traffic, literally into our back yards, you are destroying the very thing that has made Los Gatos a special community. Sincerely, Lewis Darrow Homeowner and resident 449 Alberto Way. From: Colleen Fuller [garnett13@icloud.com] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 4:06PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Against proposed project at 401-405 Alberto way Hello Ms. Armer I have been a resident on Alberto Way since June of 1998 in two different complexes. I have, therefore, personally witnessed the increasing problems brought about by parking and traffic needs of this little dead end road over the years. I am vehemently opposed to this proposed construction for several reasons that concern residents on our street. Especially for the residents of The Commons, a senior resident facility, of which I am now one. These reasons include: # Obvious traffic congestion during demolition and construction of said project for residents and emergency vehicles could be catastrophic. # Difficulties incurred due to obstruction and delays for residents to navigate the only exit/entrance point of our dead end road. # The air and noise pollution incumbent with this construction plan would be intolerable. # Dangers of exposure to our seniors and young children who suffer from respiratory ailments; construction and ensuing increase in traffic would continue this danger well past the demolition/construction phases. #Evacuation during earthquake, fire, flood, murderous intruders (you may scoff but as this route only has one exit, we would be "sitting ducks") would be impossibly challenging, especially for slower moving seniors. #Aesthetically, this project does not blend with the overall Los Gatos planlvibe. I appreciate the time you took to read this letter. Sincerely Colleen (Fuller) Garnett Not all those who wander are lost. --J.R.R. Tolkien To: From : Date: Planning Commission Los Gatos, CA RECEIVED AUG 18 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION ~ ~ Los Gatos Commons Committee to Oppose the Alberto Way Project-Marilyn Basham , Loretta Fowler, Suzanne Noble, Marietta Riney, Shirley Rya~MJ-~ ?Ill{. , ... August 18, 2016 We ask you not to certify the Environmental Impact Report and not to approve the proposed 401-409 Alberto Way project. The report understates the negative impact the project would have on the residents and the neighborhood, and provides inadequate mitigations. AESTHETICS (3 :1-14): The EIR concludes that there are no negative impacts; we disagree. EIR CONCLUSIONS : Three Impacts (1)1mpact: "The proposed project would have an adverse effect on a scen ic vista (less than significant)." We d i sagree. The General Plan states that new projects must respect all views of scenic vistas, especially views ofthe Santa Cruz mountains, and views from the adjacent properties. The EIR maintains that the views currently present would not be affected by the proposed project. As several speakers pointed out at the public meeting, this is not the case. Also, as explained in the public hearing on August 10, the project will have additional features that are taller than 35 feet. (2)1mpact: "The proposed project would change the visual character of the project site (less than significant)." As the EIR notes, the town architect found that the project was inconsistent with the General Plan that requires keeping with the small town character, and blending and harmonizing with established areas (EIR :2:23). The report indicates that subsequently the project was "redesigned" to correct this problem . We do not see any change that would address the General Plan's requirement that the property type (office building), density and intensity be consistent with that of the immediate neigllborhood . We see no indication that the developer would achieve the small town character by "the quality of ~evelopment plans and the judgment exercised in the design review process" (3 :11). This project offers nothing to its neighbors. It replaces small businesses (chiropractors, law offices, and other community service which are part of the community fabric of Los Gatos and the Alberto Way neighborhood) with a massive building that will be off limits to its neighbors . (3)1mpact: "The project would create less than significant light and glare (less than significant)." Actually, the proposed building will stand several feet from the Las Casitas property. In the new bui lding people will work late hours and artificial light will shine into Las Casitas bedrooms. Balconies do not stop light, and people on the balconies can look into rooms at the Las Casitas complex. Moreover, the proposed building will cast giant shadows that will block the sunlight that we currently enjoy. 1 AIR QUALITY (3:14-38): Impacts are understated and mitigations inadequate . The proposed project will introduce 390 cars into the Alberto Way cul-de-sac. As they wait to clear signals, cars will idle at intersections on HWY 9, at the Alberto Way intersection, and on the HWY 17 ramp area and its approach . As the EIR report pointed out (3 :146-47), there will be queues on the ramps and on HWY 9 that will require up to three or more signal cycles to clear. This idling will increase air pollution in the neighborhood. These pollutants contribute to reduced lung capacity and other respiratory problems. The mitigations suggested do not address the problem of the traffic emissions. EIR CONCLUSIONS: Three Impacts (1)1mpact: ''The project is inconsistent with the 2010 Clean Air Plan;' the goal of which is to meet or exceed air quality standards and reduce population exposure. The Bay Air Basin is now in non- attainment status for some pollutants so emissions from the proposed project could elevate the pollution levels. Response to mitigation measures: None affect the traffic volume significantly. The furnace upgrade addresses air in the building but does nothing to reduce vehicle emissions. The charging stations for electric/plug-in vehicles would have little effect on the traffic emissions, and there is no guarantee the tenants would have these kinds of cars in large numbers . Charging from a 24V charging station takes 9.5 hours for most popular Tesla ModelS cars. Four cars will be able to charge per day, which is about 1% of the total parking spots. The construction site regulations for lower diesel emissions are not fully implemented now (3: 21-22). See Impact (3) below. The trip reduction program is voluntary and probably unrealistic: ride sharing may not occur; there is no easy access to public transit; cycling is not very convenient or safe. Tenants probably will not be local residents, so they will not be walking or biking on dangerous roads. Restriping the intersection at Alberto Way is not going to reduce congestion because we currently have an unmarked right turn lane in use and we still have long waits for a gap in traffic. Space for the bike box is problematic, and the extensive use of bicycles by tenants is questionable. The sidewalk improvement is not necessary-we currently use the sidewalk that is there and the dangerous crossings ofthe ramps to and from HWY 17 will not be improved. In short, none of these "mitigations" actually reduces traffic congestion significantly. Emissions will not be reduced. (2) Impact: "The project would result in less than significant emissions of criteria air pollution emissions due to a reduction in per capita trips." No mitigation necessary. Mitigation is necessary. Where does the Clean Air Plan call for "per capita" trip statistics? This per capita approach is misleading in terms of traffic congestion. There would be an increase of 700 daily trips and 364 at peak hours. This is an indisputable increase in trips and we have no data on how the increase would contribute to pollution . The EIR concludes that because the site is an office complex, patrons will not spend time outside 2 exposed to the roadway emissions with high volumes of traffic, including diesel trucks, so the effect of roadway emissions is less tt)an significant. What about the residents? They walk in the neighborhood, including near the proposed project site, every day, and most homes have outdoor patios or balconies. (3)1mpact: "The project could result in pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors (less than significant with mitigation)." The EIR concedes thanensitive receptors (elderly and serious ly ill persons and children) are especially affected by pollutant concentrates and that a separation of 500 feet between high volume freeways and sensitive receptors is recommended. The California Air Resources Board says quality of life issues need to be considered for this population, not just the volume of daily trips. The CEQA guidelines require that there not be a net increase of criteria pollutants in non- attainment status and that sensitive receptors should not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. We believe the project does not meet these guidelines. We need to know the pollution levels, especially on HWY 17, in order to evaluate if the proposed project would create substantial levels of pollutants. And we need to have the "quality of life" issue recognized and addressed . Response to Mitigation Measures : These measures focus on the construction site and the dust it will produce. One of our residents , lewis Darrow, is a construction project manager/owners rep with 30 years of experience working on projects in Silicon Valley. He is currently working on a similar project for a major client: a two-story building of 96,000 square feet, with 210 spaces of underground parking. The site is located in a commercial business park with no residential neighbors and three times as much land w ith two access roads. Mr. Darrow points out that the Alberto Way site will not support the construction of this proposed project without major impacts to all of the res i dents in the Alberto Way neighborhood. The site being proposed at Alberto Way has one access point, a point already congested at the traffic l ight. To excavate a two-level 390-car underground parking ga rage on this site would involve multiple diesel trucks in demolition and debris off hauling. Excavation could take six to eight weeks with dump trucks hauling 275 loads per day for 1200 loads. Other trucks will be required: concrete trucks making 4-5 deliveries with about 200 loads per day, 10 yards per truck, 80 tons per load . The roads were not meant to support these ~assive construction loads and will have to be replaced and repaired. These trucks are massive and will be continuous, blocking visibility and spewing plumes of dust and particulate into the air. If they try to control it with mist and water, the heavy-treaded truck tires will drag mud everywhere. Cleanup will need to be constant, thus adding additional trucks and delays to the overtaxed street and intersection. These trucks and the number of them required and the number of trips required to do this project will emit diesel and particulate, and current regulations on diesel emissions are not fully implemented (3 :21-22). The proposed project will add serious ai r and noise pollution to our neighborhood . PUBLIC SERVICE (EIR 3 :135-41): No Negative Impacts Were Identified, but These Exist EIR CONCLUSIONS Impact: Fire and Emergency Medical Services : The i mpact is not i ns ignificant in our view. There w ill be delay time from traffic congestion . The fire department and associated EMS respond to eme rge ncies on 3 Alberto Way, and especially at the Commons senior condominiums . This issue was conveyed to Mr. Lamb in public meetings, contrary to the EIR statement on 3:135. A higher than average 7.75 calls per month to Alberto Way since 2014 are documented, yet there is no plan to address delays. The traffic study by Hexagon did not consider the impact of the proposed project on emergency calls to the residents on Alberto Way; nor does the EIR . In the Traffic and Transportation section, emergency vehicle access to the new building was assessed and the developer is required to produce a ·plan at some point in the future to show the project would not impede emergency response to the project site-no plan for the residents (3 :179). In addition to EMS vehicles, every day Outreach vehicles come to the Commons to take people to and from medical appointments. Hospice and homehealth workers come to administer pain relief, IV medication, chemotherapy, and physical therapy. Missed or delayed appointments due to traffic congestion are a real problem, as is the disruption of schedules of medications. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION (EIR 3:141-80) The analysis of traffic volumes under-reports the increase in trips and delays that would be produced by the proposed project. The mitigations in the EIR are not adequate for the impacts the EIR identifies as significant. The construction phase would create excessive gridlock. EIR CONCLUSIONS :Four Impacts (1) Impact: "The project would contribute to traffic which may conflict with applicable plans and policies regarding performance of the circulation system at a project level (less than significant with mitigation"). We have concluded that the post-project traffic volume is under-represented in the EIR. All Hwy 17 vehicles eastbound on Hwy 9 are omitted, which results in an inaccurate "delay" statistic at the Alberto Way/Hwy 9 intersection. The existing Hwy 17 exiting traffic is not counted by the EIR (Hexagon) as ever having arrived at Alberto Way. This is the reason the EIR concludes that Alberto Way operates as a B LOS presently and post-project. Our experience driving it daily is that during the school year the intersection operates at an E or F LOS with high queueing on Hwy 9 between Los Gatos Blvd . and Santa Cruz Avenue. We believe that the rush hour traffic is under-represented, which undercounts the traffic volume which would result from the project. The EIR spreads the rush period over two hours, but actually the rush perio d for tenants/employees is much more likely to be 40 or 45 minutes. Employees will be commuters principally because mass transit into Lo s Gatos is not feasible. While there are factors that can depress any particular day's "out ofthe office", the trips generated will be far higher than the EIR estimates. For a 2-hour rush, 319 trips are claimed. But for a 45-minute rush, there would be far more. We also point out that the construction phase would b e disastrous for the neighborhood . The st reet will need to be closed down to be safe during these periods of demolition, excavation, concrete and 4 foundation work (see Air Quality section}. How will residents and clients of exist ing businesses, as well as emergency vehicles, be guaranteed access? They cannot be. All of these problems are worsened because of the proximity of the site to the busy exit and single entry point into Alberto Way. Every day diesel trucks will be hauling hundreds of loads and other trucks making hundreds of deliveries. The number of workers to support concrete pours, rebar installation and general construction will number 60-80 at any given time, and these workers will need to park somewhere. There is no space for them on Alberto Way. The .proposed building is pushed right up to the Alberto Way curb and has little to no room for a construction faydown yard, cranes, farge trucks, and site parking for workers. The proposed proj ect will ensnarl a small residential one-entry cul-de-sac with gridlock traffic. Mitigation Measures proposed by t he EIR : The EIR would require restrip ing of the Alberto Way intersection into a dedicated right-turn lane and a shared left through lane. (Al so a bike box is recommended.} But the street at the intersection is not wide enough for these changes . Alberto Way's pavement width is 36 feet. The Caltrans Design Manual Chapter 300 specified mini mum lane width for an area co'llector road is 11 feet and 12 is preferred . The minimum bike lane w i dth is 4 feet. Alberto Way is one foot too narrow to accomplish these changes . (Also, see the Air Qualify section :this change would not decrease the traffic volume or help with delays. And note the discussion of the problems during construction that would stack traffic at the intersection.) (2) Impact: "The project could potentially increase hazards due to design features for bicycles, pedestrian s, and transit (less than significant)." Even though the EIR concludes that m it iga t io n is not necessary, there is not sufficient space for a bike box. Moreover, the EIR currently does not encourage biking (3 :176}. With regard to pedestrians, improved sidewalks would not encou r age more pedestrians; the current sidewalk on the north side is adequate except for th e ramp crossings, which the project would not address . (3} Impact: "The project could potentially increase hazards due to design features based on site access and sight distance (less than significant w ith mitigation}." Mitigation measures proposed by EI R: Parking on southbound Al berto Way between the two project driveways shalf be prohibited to ensure sight distance is not obscured. Remova l of eight on-street parking spaces would seriously impact many of the res i dents. 420 and 435 Alberto Way and Alberto Way itself were designed with sufficient on-street parking for the size and occupancies of their bu ildings. Los Gatos approved the constructi on of Grill 57, which repl aced the former registration lobby of the Los Gatos Inn, but did not require adequate parking for its clientele. This has brought additional use of the on-street parking. Because Grill 57 did not add parki ng for its patrons and employees, they use on-street parki ng, forc ing residents and guest s to compete w ith other residents for parking. The Alberto Way project proposes to accommodate 5 cars in the parking garage or surface parking. How this wou ld work and to what ext ent it would be conven ient is not addressed . How would th is plan be implemented ? 5 (4) Impact: "The project could potentially increase hazards due to design features based on site circulation and parking (less than significant)." We question whether the driveway is adequate for trash pick-up without creating stacking of employee cars that m ight extend onto Alberto Way. ALTERNATIVES (EIR 6 : 1-12): Alternatives Considered Alternative #1: No Project/Existing Square Footage . We disagree that the existing square footage alternative would "not be consistent with the proposed proj ect's obj ectives" or only "partially" met. The only question is how to provide a building that satisfies the wishes of high-tech office users in Clas s A office space. Surely it is possible with a creative design and w ith some selectivity i n tenants. Alternative #2 : Reduced Project. The one-story underground parking garage would carry the negative impacts we raised in Traffic and Transportation and Air Quality. # The EIR contains errors of omission, uses misleading or incorrect statistics at times, and glosses over negative impacts with inadequate mitigations. We also feel it lacks objectivity because the neighborhood residents did not have adequate input though joint interaction with planning staff and developers. The developers seem not to be interested in communicating with the residents, Mr. Lamb t ell i ng some he cared about the buildi ng, not the residents. He invited res ident s from The Commons to a meeting, ye' did not tell them in what room the meeting would be held, and when the elderly r esidents arrived they found a hot, stuffy room with no chairs . Some were unable to stand for the entire rn eetirg. Many people mov~ to Los Gatos to escape the traffh: and the Silicqn Valley. Some live here all . . ' . . . . their lives to enjoy the unique life style . Moving this massive commercial buildi ng w ith its increased traffic literally into our back yards, will lead to the undermining or destructi on of the very thing that ha s made Los Gatos a special community. Thank you for considering our input. 6 Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Paul Gundotra <paulgun007@gmail.com> Thursday, August 18, 2016 9:51 AM Jennifer Armer Re: 401-405 Alberto Way Project Follow up Flagged Good morning Jennifer. This is to inform you of additional information that has come to my attention that needs to be brought to the attention of the planning commission as well as the commissioners. In that I just waked over on Tuesday morning about 1 0 am to see how many cars are parked at buildings at the end of Alberto way. I found that there are about 300 parking places and ONLY 10% were occupied. That means that if fully occupied will add additional 270 cars. Now add additional 390 cars for this new project. The question is : has any one ask if this has been taken into consideration either by the planning commission and if not then the traffic studies provided by the project developer are not consistent with reality in the future. I have already presented this information to my HOA committee yesterday. So they may add this to their filing today, but just in case it is not fully explained I am send you this information to be added o the objection against the development project at 401 Alberto way. Also even without this project going forward we need two lane markings for out bound traffic from Alberto way toRt 9. Thank you, On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:04PM, Paul Gundotra <paulgun007@gmail.com> wrote: To Jennifer.T Armer As a resident of the area at 439 Alberto way #209, I strongly object to this proposed development on various grounds. Here are some of the reasons: The traffic at the light as is now, is very congested during the rush hour and during the school opening and closing hours. There is only one lane out of this community. At the light if some one is making left, every one has to wait, even those making right. Many times this light is only good for 15-20 seconds and only two cars can get by. During school hours, I have missed two lights waiting to get through. I think that is very unreasonable. As it is we need two lanes, one for left tum and for straight and another one for right tum. Adding more cars to this only one way our of this community will only make thing unbearable for the resident all ready living here. During construction phase and ongoing would impede emergency vehicles from getting in and out from the Commons. We would be exposed to air and noise pollution. During evacuation if and when called for, this new construction would make it impossible to do so in a reasonable and safe way. Finally, This project does not harmonize, nor blend with the scale and rhythm of this neighborhood oflarge senior res idents. (see Town of Los gatos, 2020 general plan CD-1.2) Paul Gundotra 954-667 -7285 1 Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag : Flag Status: Hi, Folks. Bob Burke <bobburkeat@gmail.com> Thursday, August 18, 2016 10:17 AM Jennifer Armer; Planning Rebuttal to EIR for 401-409 Alberto Way EIR Rebuttal Alberto Way Citizens .docx; Caltrans fee calculat ion e-mail.pdf Follow up Flagged Here is our input from the Casitas, Pueblo de Los Gatos & Bella Vista for next Wednesday's Planning Commission meeting. We've coordinated efforts with the Commons, who are submitting a separate document. Will this be shared with the Applicant prior to the meeting? Regards, Bob Burke 408-896-7896 "Timely action combined with market knowledge creates excellence and value in the introduction of new tech no logy." 1 To : Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission Los Gatos, CA From : Citizens of Alberto Way Date : August 18, 2016 We ask you not to certify the Environmental Impact Report and to not approve the proposed 401-409 Alberto Way project. The report understates the negative impact the project would have on the residents and the neighborhood and provides inadequate mitigations. Here is rationale. AESTH ETI CS (3:1-14): the EIR concludes that the re a re n o n egative impact s ; we disagree. EIR Conclusions (1)1mpact: "The proposed project would have an adverse effect on a scenic vista (less than significant." We disagree. The General Plan states that new projects must respect all views of scenic v istas, especially views of the Santa Cruz mountains, and views from the adjacent properties. The EIR maintains that the views currently present would not be affected by the proposed project. As several speakers pointed out at the public meeting, this is not the case. Also, as explained in the public hearing on August 10, the project will have additional features AIR QUALITY (3 : 14-38): Impacts Are Understated and Mitigations Inadequate (2)1mpact : "The proposed project would change the visual character of the project site (less than significant)." As the EIR notes, the town architect found that the project was inconsistent with the General Plan that requires keeping with the small town character and blending and harmonizing with established areas (EIR:2 :23). The report indicates that subsequently the project was "redesigned" to correct this problem. We do not see any change that would address the General Plan's requirement that the property type (office building), density and intensity be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood. We see no indication that the developer would achieve the small town character by "the quality of development plans and the judgment exercised in the design review process" (3 :11). This project offers nothing to its neighbors. It replaces small businesses (chiropractors, law offices, and other community services) which are part of the community fabric of Los Gatos and the Alberto Way neighborhood with a massive building that will be off limits to its neighbors . (3)1mpact : "The project would create less than significant light and glare (less than significant)." Actually, the proposed building will stand several feet from the Las Casitas property and in that bu ilding 1 people will work late hours and light will shine into Las Casitas bedrooms. Balconies do not stop light, and people on the balconies can look into rooms at the Las Casitas complex. Moreover, the proposed building will cast giant shadows that will block the sunlight that we currently enjoy. AIR QUALITY (3:14-38): Impacts are understated and mitigations inadequate The proposed project will introduce 390 cars into the Alberto Way cul-de -sac. As they wait to clear signals, cars will idle at intersections on Highway 9, at the Alberto Way intersection, and on the Highway 17 ramp area and its approach . As the EIR report pointed out (3 :146-47), there will be queues on the ramps and on Highway 9 that will require up to three or more signal cycles to clear. This idling will increase air pollution in the neighborhood. The mitigations suggested do not address the problem of the traffic emissions. EIR CONCLUSIONS : Three Impacts (l)lmpact: "The project is inconsistent with the 2010 Clean Air Plan," the goal of which is to attain air quality standards and reduce population exposure . The Bay Air Basin is now in non-attainment status for some pollutants so emissions from the proposed project could elevate the pollution levels. Response to mitigation measures : None affect the traffic volume significantly The furnace upgrade addresses air in the building but does not reduce vehicle emissions. The charging stations for electric/plug-in vehicles would have little effect on the traffic emissions, and there is no guarantee the tenants would have these kinds of cars in large numbers. Charging from a 24V charging station takes 9.5 hours for most popular Tesla ModelS cars . Four ca r s will be able to charge per day, which is about 1% of the total parking spots. The construction site regulations for lower diesel emissions are not fully implemented now (3: 21-22). The trip reduction program is voluntary and probably unrealistic: ride sharing may not occur; there is no easy access to public transit; cycling is not very convenient or safe. Tenants probably are not local residents, so they won't be walking or biking on dangerous roads. Restriping the intersection at Alberto Way is not going to reduce congestion because we currently have an unmarked right turn lane that we use and we still have long waits for a gap in traffic. Space for the bike box is problematic, and the extensive use of bicycles by tenants is questionable. The sidewalk improvement is not necessary -we currently use the sidewalk that is there and the dangerous ramp crossings to highway 17 will not be improved. In short, none of these "mitigations" actually reduces traffic congestion significantly. Emis sions will not be reduced. 2 (2) Impact: "The project would result in Jess than significant emissions of criteria air pollution emissions due to a reduction in per capita trips." No mitigation necessary. Mitigation is necessary. Where does the Clean Air Plan call for "per capita" trip statistics? This per capita approach is misleading in terms of traffic congestion. There would be an increase of 700 daily trips and 364 at peak hours. This is an increase in trips and we have no data on how the increase would contribute to pollution. The EIR concludes that because the site is an office complex, patrons will not spend time outside exposed to the roadway emissions with high volumes of traffic, including diesel trucks so the effect of roadway emissions is less than significant. What about the residents? They walk in the neighborhood, including near the proposed project site, every day, and most homes have outdoor patios or balconies. (3)1mpact: "The project could result in pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors." The EIR concedes that sensitive receptors (elderly and seriously ill persons and children) are especially affected by pollutant concentrates and that a separation of 500 feet between high volume freeways and sensitive receptors is recommended. The California Air Resources Board says quality of life issues need to be considered for this population, not just the volume of ~aily trips. The CEQA guidelines require that there not be a net increase of criteria pollutants in non-attainment status and that sensitive receptors should not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. We need to know the pollution levels, especially on highway 17, to evaluate if the proposed project would create substantial levels of pollutants. And we need to have the "quality of life" issue recognized and addressed. Response to Mitigation Measures: These measures focus on the construction site and the dust it will produce. One of our residents, Lewis Darrow, is a construction project manager/owners rep with 30 years of experience working on projects in Silicon Valley. He is currently working on a similar project for a major client: a two-story building of 96,000 square feet, with 210 spaces of underground parking. The site is located in a commercial business park with no residential neighbors and three times as much land with two access roads. Mr. Darrow points out that the Alberto Way site will not support the construction of this proposed project without major impacts on all of the residents in the Alberto Way neighborhood. The site being proposed at Alberto Way has one access point, a point already with congestion at the light. To excavate a two story 390-car underground parking garage on this site would involve multiple diesel trucks in demolition and debris off hauling. Excavation could take six to eight weeks with dump trucks hauling 275 loads per day for 1200 loads. Other trucks will be required: concrete trucks making 4-5 deliveries with about 200 loads per day, 10 yards per truck, 80 tons per load. The roads were not meant to support these massive construction loads and will have to be replaced and repaired . These trucks are massive and will be continuous, blocking visibility and creating plumes of dust and particulate into the air. If they try to control it with mist and water, the heavy treaded truck ties will drag mud everywhere . Cleanup will need to be constant, thus adding additional trucks and delays to the overtaxed street and intersection. These trucks and the number of them required and the number of trips required to do this project will emit diesel and particulate, and current regulations on diesel emissions are not fully implemented (3:21-22). The street will need to be closed down to be safe during these periods of demolition, excavation, concrete and foundation work. How will residents and clients of existing business and emergency vehicles be guaranteed access . They cannot be . All of these problems are worsened because of the proximity of the site exiting to the busy intersection and single 3 entry point into Alberto Way. The amount of workers to support concrete pours, rebar installation and general construction will number 60-80 at any given time and these workers will need to park somewhere. There is no space for them on Alberto Way. The building is pushed right up to the Alberto Way curb and has little to no room for a construction laydown yard, cranes, large trucks, and site parking for workers. The proposed project will add serious air and noise pollution and ensnarl a small residential one-entry cul-de-sac with gridlock traffic. PUBLIC SERVICE (EIR 3:135-41): No Negative Impacts Were Identified, but These Exist EIR CONCLUSIONS (1)Area Schools: The impact is not insignificant in our view. The project assumes that employees in the new building will al~eady be living in Los Gatos or have children in schools elsewhere . Some of the latter could place their children in the Los Gatos schools and after school programs and then pick them up after work and drive home. This would increase traffic in the town and even a small increase in student population could require new facilities. The North 40 project will add students to the schools in Los Gatos, a fact which seemingly is ignored in the EIR. The mention of a development impact fee does not include any specifics on how the fee would be used to addres s overcrowding. (2) Fire and Emergency Medical Services : The impact is not insignificant in our view. There will be delay time from traffic congestion . The fire department and associated EMS respond to emergencies on Alberto Way, and especially at the Commons senior condominiums. This issue was conveyed to Mr. Lamb in public meetings, contrary to the EIR statement on 3 :135. A higher than average 7.75 calls per month to Alberto Way since 2014 are documented, yet there is no plan to address delays. The traffic study by Hexagon did not consider the impact of the proposed project on emergency calls to the residents on Alberto Way; nor does the EIR, although in the Traffic and Transportation section, access of emergency vehicles to the new building was accessed and the developer is required to produce a plan at some point in the future to show the project would not impede emergency response to the project site (3 :179). Mr. Roy Toney, in a letter to the Planning Commission on August, 2016, reported that Mr. Lamb told him the Fire Department had approved the proposed project for safety. The Fire Department told Mr. Toney that that was not true. In addition to EMS vehicles, every day Outreach vehicles come to the Commons to take people to and from medical appointments. Hospice and home health workers come to administer pain relief, IV medication, chemotherapy, and physical therapy. Missed or delayed appointments due to traffic congestion are a real problem, as is the disruption of schedules of medicine. 4 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION (EIR 3:141-80) The Traffic Report in the Transportation DEIR is Defective The traffic report is rife with: -Omission of the Hwy-17 Intersections of Hwy-9 & Lark Ave from the Intersections at which Traffic was studied that omit the numbers needed to verify the Traffic Study in its entirety and in specific enable Applicant to falsely report the present and as-proposed Rush Period traffic caused by the proposed development -Obvious Incorrect Traffic Study data that reduced Rush Period vehicle arrivals at Alberto Way and Hwy- 9 both presently and as generated by the Proposed Development Obviously Incorrect Number of Busy Period Trips into and out of Alberto Way generated by the Proposed Development. -Obvious assumption defect ofthe time interval in which the Rush Period occurs that reduces Rush Period vehicle arrivals at Alberto Way and Hwy-9 both presently and as generated by the Proposed Development -Obvious assumption defects of the sq. ft. per employee in the Proposed Development in a manner that also understates the daily and rush period trips generated by the Proposed Development. -Substitution of partial and stale Hwy-17 traffic data in the place of collecting t raffic data during 2015 when the Alberto Way & Hwy-9 intersection was studied study sourced from either Caltrans in 2013 (stated by Ollie Zhou Hexagon on the phone) or from VTA in 2014 (Stated in one of the Applicant's filings). Traffic magnitude has risen significantly since its collection by VTA or Caltrans . All of the omissions, assumptions and false numeric entries work in whole to under-represent the traffic generated by the Proposed Development. Traffic Impact Rebuttals 5 Impact (EIR 3-140) The project would result in less than significant impacts to area fire department facilities Rebuttal: This is incorrect and is based on the Traffic Report's omitted and exaggerated numbers and the LOS at Hwy-9 & Alberto is highly under-reported as a result . The LOS during rush is above a "b". Traffic Report Omits 1,539 AM and 2,018 PM rush hour vehicles exiting Hwy-17 Traffic Report is based on an exaggerated 2 hour rush period for tenant employee arrivals and departures, which lowers the reported trip generation to below that generated by employers stated wor king hours. Traffic Report uses 370 employees in the PD based on an atypical"spacious" office layout Vs . the more typical 735 employees, which lowers the reported trip generation to below that generated by high tech employers using 1/3rd cubicles and 2/3rd bull pen office layouts Rebuttal: FEIR ignores its own observed AM Rush Hour Spillback on EB Hwy-9 approaching Alberto Way that has blocked Fire and EMS access to Alberto Way This is what is ignored (EIR 3-146-147}: Alberto Way and los Gatos-Saratoga Road . During the AM peak period, heavy traffic volume was observed only on the eastbound leg of Los Gatos-Saratoga Road . There was spillback f r om the downstream i ntersection on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road at Los Gatos Boulevard. As a result, the inner eastbound through lane on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road queued to the State Route 17 southbound on- ramp, and the outer eastbound through lane on los Gatos-Saratoga Road queued onto the State Rout e 17 northbound off-ramp. Because of the spill back issue f rom l os Gatos Boulevard, the eastbound through movement on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road required several signal cycles to clear the queue. los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. During the AM peak period, heavy traffic volume was observed on the eastbound leg of Los Gatos-Saratoga Road . The eastbound left-t urn l ane on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road feeds onto northbound Los Gatos Boulevard, but because of spillback issues at the downstream intersection at Caldwell Avenue, the eastbound left-turn lane on Los Gatos -Saratoga Road requires three cycles to clear. The right-turn lane on Los Gatos Saratoga Road queued only to the location of the Bella Vista Avenue overpass, and cleared within one signal cycle . No significant issues were observed on other movements. During the PM peak period, heavy traffic volumes were observed on the southbound through movement on Los Gatos Boulevard and eastbound left-turn movement on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. Both movements required two signal cycles to clear. Rebuttal: Under-reported additional trips generated by the Project will further block EB Hwy -17 ramps and Fire + EMS 6 Rebuttal: No Construction Tra ffic Control Pl a n is s how n and we can see n o Plan that can kee p Hwy-9 & Alb e rto Way open to Fire & EMS during the Ex cava t ion & Concrete Pour The line of trucks waiting to enter the PD will be dozens long during both of these phases and will congest both roads. The project is simply too massive. Rebuttal: Ca ltra n s reports to us that the Traffic Fee calculati o n u ses 7 00 a d diti onal trips ($61 5,800 I $879/additi o n al t ri p) This is far less than the fee that would be paid should the Tenants employ 735 people using the high density seating layout. Attached is an e-mail from Bernie Wal ik of Caltrans . The new trips generated in the rush periods alone are> twice what the fee calculation shows presently. Impact: (EIR: 3 -170) The project would contribute to traffic which may conflict with applicable p lans and policies r egarding perfor mance of t h e circulation system at a project level (less than significant with mitigation) Rebuttal: Not Mitigated as Table 20 Omits the Interse ction ofHwy-9 at Hwy-17 and shows no LOS on it: The EB single lane section after the Hwy-9 bridge over Hwy-17 is the point at which present+ added traffic blocks Fire and EMS to points East of Hwy-17 during Rush Periods Rebuttal : Not Mitigated since it r e lies on Table 20 which shows i ncorrect LOS "B" fo r Alberto Way via the Omission of Hwy-17 vehicle exits to EB Hwy-9 · Here's why: (Applicant's Charts below are from Exhibit H in the DEIR and must be re-sized to read-use your computers to view or Planning Staff must magnify the page for the Planning Commissioners to read on paper.) Present Traffic: 100% of Hwy 17 vehicles exiting to Eastbound Hwy 9 are omitted fr om the vehicles arriving a t Alberto allowing Applicant to claim a "B " LOS at Al berto & Hwy 9 si n ce t h e Hwy-17 traffic is not s u mmed in the Study Figure 3 in these charts contains false data and they appear in the DEIR in Appendix H as Figure 6 on an un-numbered page that would be p . 14 aka page 24 of 63 in the pdf. The middle chart, Figure 3, shows vehicles arriving at and leaving Alberto Way as claimed by the Applicant. 7 Applicant's Traffic Report in DEIR Appendix H omitted all Vehicles arriving from CA-17 heading Eastbound on Hwy 9. The following shows the actual numbers as computed from the chart above for Figure 3 adjusted for the Hwy 17 Exiting Vehicle counts to Eastbound Hwy 9 in DEIR Appendix H Table 4. Adjusted for vehicles exiting Hwy-17 to EB on Hwy-9, the actual traffic is 2 .6x what the Applicant shows. Intersection Prior Intersections EB 9 from University SB 17 to EB 9 NB 17 to EB 9 EB9toSB17 EB 9 to NB 18 Total Intersection Prior Intersections EB 9 from University SB 17 to EB 9 NB17toEB9 EB9toSB17 EB 9 to NB 18 Total 9 & Alberto PRESENT PEAK AM HOUR Vehicle Arrivals & Exits EB Vehicles arriving at Alberto leaving prior Intersections 887 1103 379 Not Reported Not Reported 23_6_9 Claimed Count on Fig. 3 897 0 0 9 & Alberto PRESENT PEAK PM HOUR Vehicle Arrivals & Exits EB Vehicles arriving at Alberto leaving prior Intersections 909 758 125 Not Reported Not Reported 1m Claimed Count on Fig. 3 909 0 0 8 Below is Table 4 from the DEIR Appendix H, which contains Applicant's claimed Present Hwy 17 exits to Hwy-9. The existing Hwy 17 exiting traffic is not counted by Applicant's Traffic Report as ever having arrived at Alberto Way. This is the root cause of the EIR statement that Alberto Way operates as a B LOS both presently and As Proposed. Our experience driving it daily is that during the school year the intersection operates at an E or F LOS with high queuing on 9 between LG Blvd and Santa Cruz Avenue. Table 4 Exi sting f reeW'ay Ramp Analysis ~ ~ ~~ Ramp T~ Hcu Capority' VolliM 2 VlC re oatoQ'?Fip frlrm1 \"llB Los ~-~ Rd Oi~ AVJ ~ 11 53 0.59 PM ZOO!li 1017 0.5 1 SR 11 i Los &ms· SB01H3mp hm 't\-9 l os GJ!Ds~Rd loop PM ,. 104 GUMS Si!F"il!ng:3> Rd PM 1593 378 0.2 1 Nao!f..Gmp ~gJE8 L~ Gabs~a Rd Oi~ A Vi 2:\00 379 0 .19 PM 200J 125 Omi SS of-r.~mp ID• EB lc<5 Gals.S3.l3!Dga Rd Loop 1M t !OO 11 03 ®.$1 Prl. t .SOO 759 0 .42 ~ t . Ramp mpa:.'ties.,. clltPed fi'um Sle HighwayCap3myf.bml'3li 2DOO . a"'!dl ccnsi :f~<N fie ~0'/J speed. and 1M n-amW. of la:!li!S on the r.a:"'lp . Z. ElestinQ peak hourW:umes are cmained tom P£-1SG!1!ill Cl).11'1nl 'IJ.1\-..:atio witniCalt!aM st.llf Jordan Chan on Sepll!mber 11.20 15. False Traffic Report Data on App e ndix H : Hwy-9 & Albe rto Way: Ea s tbound PM Ru s h "Existing + Propose d" Figure 3 in these charts contains false data that omits all Hwy 17 Eastbound exits and they appear in the DEIR in Appendix H as Figure 11 on an un-numbered page aka page 38 of 63 ln the pdf. The middle chart, Figure 3, shows vehicles arri ving at and leaving Alberto Way as claimed by the Applicant. 9 Applicant's Traffic Report in DEIR Appendix H omitted all Vehicles arriving from CA -17 heading Eastbound on Hwy 9. The following shows the actual numbers as computed from the chart above for Figure 3 adjusted for Hwy 17 Exiting Vehicle counts to Eastbound Hwy 9 in DEIR Appendix H Table 4. Intersection Prior Intersections EB 9 from University SB 17 to EB 9 NB 17 to EB 9 EB 9 fr Univ to SB 17 EB 9 fr Univ to NB 17 Total Intersection Prior Intersections EB 9 from University SB 17 to EB 9 NB17toEB9 EB 9 fr Univ to SB 17 EB 9 fr Univ to NB 17 Total 9 & Alberto AS PROPOSED PEAK AM HOUR Vehicle Arrivals & Exits EB Vehicles arriving at Alberto Leaving prior Intersections 980 1155 405 Not Reported Not Reported 2~ Claimed Count on Fig . 3 As Proposed 1001 0 0 9 & Alberto AS PROPOSED PEAK PM HOUR Vehicle Arrivals & Exits EB Vehicles arriving at Alberto Leaving prior Intersections 1647 1155 125 Not Reported Not Reported 2927 Cla i med Count on Fig. 3 As Proposed 909 0 0 Adjusted Peak east bound on Hwy-9 traffic arriving at Alberto Way with the M IA Hwy-17 exits to Hwy- 9 are 2.5x to 3x the vehicle counts submitted by Applicant in Appendix H. Here's the Table from DEIR Appendix 10 showing the omitted Hwy-17 Exit ing Traffic onto Hwy 9 in the Figure 3 Intersection illustrations for Existing and Proposed traffic and the adjustments shown above. 10 Table 10 Existing plus Project Free w ay Ra mp Analysis &...,. oar-.. -~ • Pn..-t C:andblno ~ -----------~------------- .....,__ ~ T,._ ,_ ~· _, VIC ~ -VIC Nl>or'ft.'l'!~~ .,.~~Gal:'.~ Rd O>e4-"ll:t. N 1 ::!t.:£1 11!1 O.St 4 H S1 O.!t JOt.! 2:1~ t ~n 05 , 41: tQ3" Q'!! S.§~ph1ft ltli La:: ~~~~ltd ~ "~ t ~ ~* :! I :If 0.1:!6 :: ~ t7 e LOr. c;m;,~-""' t i:O !l'I'SI o .. ;a :I "ll~ 0.~ S«"Je~.I<:S -~-~ t:>Uii..o: Geos~b;D IU o •;~u )It! =~ ]IT! O ~t ~~ ~! Q.% J!lt.~ ~3:1 t :.S OCl 0 1!5 om. UC!l'f"a-,yp t:> EJ\14ZGm£~JII'ICI LcQ;. IU "~ tftli CIA: I 1..1 U f£ ow Ill' I ttXI re c.: a :u 0-'2 ~ t Rr-;~·--~r.ed!!::-e:tH~-~~lt;IAIIIA ~ 811'=~~11ft-f~ill'=~.~l'.tnumwCillaliHQ111'1f t'll!ll~ ~ Ec~,.,a~ r~.:!e:res: r.r m:t~~:!'.r.l h"ll pmor.a mm'l'..rat7 •lt ca.-nn t~.tl!':lllll cr:n en S.tS!Ir'l!er n .. r.n ! Trips generated by the PD are exaggerated to the low side and there is no sensitivity study varying the tena nt employee count or the time interval of the tenants' rush hours. Applicant is showing 1 parking space for approximately every 250 square feet. This equates to ~370 employees. This said, it's clear that Applicant spread the trips generated over ~2 hours Rush Period since it asserts ~180+/-trips in the Peak Hour(s). The building's capacity is reasonable as high as 735 employees and there is no mass transit into Los Gatos. Employees will be principally commuters in autos with very minor numbers being in carpools and other alternatives . The rush period for tenants employees is much more likely to be 40 minutes rather than 2 hours. While there are factors that can depress any particular day's "out of office" employee count, the trips generated will be far higher than Applicant estimates. Asserting reliance on ITE's Handboo k without providi ng the detailed basis assumptions for this or anything else in the Traffic Report is a telling sign that Applicant is hiding them to game the system . Trip Generation Sensitivity Study For decision making purposes, it's reasonable to size the building's floor space and parking space count so that the floor space limit is based on the minimum possible square feet per employee and that be used to compute the required parking spaces . Applicant selected a 2 hour peak window, spreading projected 370 +/-tenants' arrivals over 2 hours. Co r porate tenants will have a scheduled start in end time: about 90% of employees arr ive and l.eave within+/-15 minutes of the start and end times, per the experience of those who work in these types of offices. Applicant has under-stated the Peak pe r iod traffic flow. Below we present the sens itivity study 11 showing how peak traffic rates vary with the two variables that determine them : Tenant Employees and the width in minutes of the Peak Traffic Interval. Sensitivity Study of trip generation by the Proposed Development Employees vs . Peak Traffic Interval Filed by Applicant (top line on left} vs . Calcu l ated Hourly Traffic Flow Rates i n Vehicles/Hour Applicant filed 159 AM inbound arrivals I hour and 152 PM outbound exits I hour for 370 tenant employees. However, if tenant employees are 735, and the minimum Peak Traffic Period of 30 minutes, the AM Arrival Rate would be 1263 arrivals/hour spread over 30 minutes for 632 arrivals in the 30 minute Peak Traffic Interval. Same for the PM : Applicant filed PM outbound 152 PM outbound exits and 31 PM outbound arrivals at 370 employees . At 735 employees: 1208 outbound exits/hour for 30 minutes or 604 Outbound exits at Peak Traffic demand. This volume will cause significant additional inbound AM queuing on Hwys 9 & 17 when combined with the omitted 1,539 AM Rush HOUR inbound traffic to Hwy-9 East from Hwy-17and significant PM outbound queuing on Alberto Way waiting for WB Hwy-9 traffic from LG Blvd to clear. This Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation since the Tenant population is not known or limited in the FEIR and since the Applicant omitted the Hwy-17 Intersection and tTraffic in the EIR .. Rebuttal: FEIR did not identify all Transportation Environmental Impacts The errored data, omissions, low-balled calculations and stale data (2013 or 2014 from Caltrans or VTA} led to omission of several Traffic Mitigation Techniques needing to be implemented by the Proposed Development (PD) or that the Proposed Development needs to be designed for in order to accommodate the ir near term future construction . These are what the "'$617K is or should be earmarked for. And the tab to be sent t o Caltrans or the VTA ha s yet to be identified. The omissions acc r ue to the benefit of the Applicant. 12 Furthermore, EIR ignores Los Gatos' own Design Rules and Policies, including the Los Gatos Commercial Design Standards : • Streamline the development review process by more clearly communicating community expectations to property owners and developers. This has not been done with Citizens and [adjacent] property owners other than sending notice cards out. Impact (EIR: 3 -179) The project could potentially increase hazards due to design features for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit (less than significant) Rebuttal: There is no construction plan and no mitigation proposed while the sidewalk on the 401-409 Alberto side of the street is closed during at demolition and construction There is no place for pedestrians to cross Alberto Way when the PD side is closed and they must cross to go to Los Gatos Blvd. There are dozens of children and elderly who walk to school and businesses from the PD side of the street. Today they walk to the corner and cross at the Hwy-9 light in the crosswalk. There is no crosswalk on Alberto and drivers traveling to and from Alberto Oaks at the end speed along Alberto. Rebuttal: This Impact is significant since the Impact is Injury up to and including Death Rebuttal to Traffic Related Cumulative Impact Statements All traffic related impact statements that rely on the Traffic Study are errored due to: omission of the Lark & Hwy-17 Intersection and the Hwy-9 & Hwy-171ntersection Traffic data errors on Table 20, Figures 6 & 11 Exaggerated assumptions that understate the Project-generated trips Rebuttals to Traffic Mitigations T-1 & T-2 Mitigation T-1 (EIR:3-175) is: T-1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the proposed project on the site, the applicant shall enter into a construction agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to implement improvements for the restriping of Alberto Way to include a dedicated right-turn lane and a shared left through lane. Costs for these improvements will be determined by the Town's traffic consultant. 13 Mitigation T-2 (EIR:3-177) is: T -2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the proposed project on the site, the applicant shall enter into a construction agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to provide a bike box on Alberto Way at the intersection with Los Gatos- Saratoga Road , as well as the detached sidewalks with a landscape buffer on Alberto Way along the project site frontage, and on the north side of Los Gatos -Saratoga Road between Alberto Way and the State Route 17 northbound on-ramp . Mitigations T1 & T2 constitute a simple re-painting of Alberto Way. There is simply insufficient paved surface width to do this re-painting to convert what is presently 2 lanes into 3 lanes + the Bike Box. Rebuttal: Mitigations Tl & T2 cannot be implemented as proposed: Alberto needs to be widened Alberto Way's pavement width is 36 feet. The Caltrans Road Design Manual Chapter 300 specifies minimum lane width for an area collector road (Alberto Way is correctly classified on Los Gatos' Road Map as an area collector) is 11 feet and 12 is preferred: Index 301.1 -Lane Width The minimum lane width on two-lane and multilane highways, ramps, collector-distributor roads, and other appurtenant roadways shall be 12 feet, except as follows: For conventional State highways with posted speeds less than or equal to 40 miles per hour and AADTT (truck volume) less than 250 per lane that are in urban, city or town centers (rural main streets), the minimum lane width shall be 11 feet. The preferred lane width is 12 feet. It goes on to specify minimum bike lane width at 4 feet. FEIR proposes these two mitigations together without widening Alberto Way. Alberto Way is 1 foot too narrow to do so using 11 foot wide lanes and 4 feet too narrow using the preferred 12 foot lanes. Mitigation T3 Causes a new and Unacceptable Environmental Impact on 420 & 435 Alberto Way Residents & Visitors T -3 Off-site improvement plans shall show that parking on southbound Alberto Way between the two project driveways shall be prohibited to ensure sight distance is not obscured. Mitigation T-3 furthermore attempts to remove about eight of "our" on-street parking spaces . 401-409, 420 & 435 Alberto Way and Alberto Way itself were designed with sufficient on-street and off-street parking for the sizes and occupancies of their buildings. 401-409 Alberto Way never have full parking lots. 14 Los Gatos approved the construction of Grill 57, which replaced the former registration lobby of the Los Gatos Inn, which brought significant additional use of the on-street parking, without requiring that the Inn or Grill 57 add parking for its patrons. Now the Grill 's employees and patrons use the on-street parking, forcing residents and guests to compete with residents and guests on Bella Vista and The Commons for on-street parking. Furthermore LP Acquisitions LLP declines in meetings with us to provide any substitute parking to Alberto Way Residents and our visitors who use on-street parking today. Elimination of on-street parking while denying 420 & 435 Alberto Way Residents & Visitors access to the same number of parking spots in the PDs garage is an Environmental Impact of significant proportions that EIR proposes and along with the insufficient width of Alberto Way to implement Mitigations 1-3 without pavement widening. These misses accrue to the financial benefit ofLP Acquisitions at the expense of Alberto Way Residents & Visitors. Mitigations Tl, T2 & T-3 fail to widen Alberto Way in front of 401-409 to Los Gatos Street Design Standards despite the need to do so Rebuttal to FEIR-Impacts that have not been adequately addressed Unidentified Impact: The curved driveway is insufficient for parking Busses, UPS, Fed ex and similar large delivery and moving trucks on Applicant's property when visitors are also parked and there is no alternative to blocking a portion of the street: this Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation Unidentified Impact: The PD has no turn-around large enough for Busses on the 401-409 Alberto PD and the cul-de-sac at the end of Alberto is too small for the turn: this is not disclosed in the DEIR ofFEIR and forecloses the possibility of most bus travel to the PD Unidentified Impact: The proposed 401 -409 Garage is blocked while trash and recycling is picked up, backing up traffic on Alberto or in the PDs garage while they are present this Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation Unidentified Impact: The curve in front of the PD is a sight problem for vehicles this Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation 15 Unidentified Impact: No construction plan can prevent complete shutdown of Alberto Way for extended periods since there is insufficient room for street ingress and egress of the large concrete trucks, cranes, materials delivery and dirt/debris hauling trucks without using the entire street to enter and exit the PD site and there will be a continuous stream of such trucks particularly during demolition, excavation & concrete pour: this Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation Unidentified Impact: During construction, work crews of 60 -100 will be present on the site at all times, each arriving in a separate vehicles: it is not possible for them to all park on the PD property after demolition ends . There is insufficient parking for them in the area: this Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation Unidentified Impact: If water is used to control particulates during construction, the trucks exiting the site will leave with caked-on mud on their tires, which will be deposited in Alberto Way and Hwy-9 during construction: this Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation Unidentified Impact: During construction, the road beds of Alberto Way and Hwy-9 will be destroyed or seriously damaged by the fully loaded concrete trucks which weigh up to 80 tons and fully loaded hauling trucks which weigh up to 30 tons: this Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation including T-2 (construction contract) and there is no construction damage Mitigation showing restoration of the roads at Applicant's expense: this Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation Unidentified Impact: Mitigation T-2 calls for a construction contract with Los Gatos, however, there is no Mitigation for the construction contract with Cal trans Unidentified Impact: As a Mixed-Use development, the PD would, generate high levels of continuous traffic that are not disclosed in the DEIR or FEIR. Applicant has stated that the target tenants are corporate offices of 1-2 high tech firms and has not accurately characterized the trip generation this type of tenant nor disclosed calculation details despite our . request to do so. No traffic study is submitted for a mixed use development. No Traffic Mitigation for Mixed Use is contained in the FEIR. 16 Revised a nd Mi ssing Mi t igatio n s Revised Mitigation T3: Widen Alberto Way along the entire length o f the Proposed Deve lopment This would: Enhance pedestrian & cycling safety and EMS access Bring Alberto Way up to current Road ROW and Lane Design standards, Be wide enough for the bike box & bike lane along PD up the incline to Hwy-9, retentio n of existing on-street parking needed by PD for large delivery I moving trucks by day and 420 + 435 residents I visitors at night • P~oc<> o:..1t 1 o :..a.z o:..., a:." o:. Ri o:.a6 o:..u o:. WlalC"C o:.c~l 0:. Curw D:.t-w o:.t ..... , o:. l ttltUM itM " I + • • l ._f'tS .....,~, e.,,._-.. ·0~·E!lt'-. .... ,,, ... e~ .. "''"' ·1!1 ·-.. o= ..... • 1!1&10 ... ,.,.,. • I!IV o. ... •DOw- • Of!'""'"~' · o i) Globaf ..... .,ff'C1 , ·0 ..... Alberto Way is highlighted as an Area Collector Road in the Los Gatos Maps. The Town's Street Design Standard here: http://www.losgatosca .gov/1150/30-Circulation requires that flatlands Streets to be designed with a 60 foot wide Right-of-Way (ROW) and 40 foot wide minimum pavement. Alberto Way has 36 foot wide pavement. To meet street design standards, Alberto Way needs widening and should be widened even more by eliminating the curve in front of the PD and keeping on-street parking vs . minimizing applicant's costs at the Alberto Way Residents' expense. 17 The EIR proposes no such widening per the Design Standard at Applicant's expense, but rather to Impact us by removing on-street parking instead of widening Alberto by using a portion of Applicant's land to accomplish the traffic safety objective while preserving our on-street parking. FEIR MISSING Mitigation T -4: Widen Hwy-9 by one lane along the entire length of the Proposed Development on Hwy-9 to allow safe right turns from Alberto Way: This Major Environmental Impact is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation . .. p ..... o:. •• o:.~ o:. kl o :_..,., o :...a) o:.~ o:.., D b WIIRt.U~t 0 :., Ct.WWl o:. c ..... o:.r1.1m2 0 ,:. Twrn\ 0 :,;. Tctl tvm Wit "(I I + • •L•'It:tt ..,.....,..,) · el-s> P""'"')"D;....,; · D Gr-:· E!lf' ... -... .... ,,,.., !!h.,.. .. • ~" I>Ntoos Dm~~o .... • eJ§I w...,....,. • el Q O<Uft ·OO w.- ·D·Gollo')" ·0 ~~A7¥'atC"'CS• ··oo ..... This Mitigation is needed because: Since Hwy-9 is 1 lane in each direction, there is not sufficient room to extend the EB left turn pocket into Alberto Way by enough to avoid queued Present+ PD generated Busy Period traffic from creating AM Gridlock (see our Traffic Study findi ngs & corrections) Enables widening Hwy 9 WB from 11ane to 2 from Alberto Way to the Hwy-17 Overpass for 2 continuous lanes Left turn lane from Hwy-9 east bound into Alberto enhances safety and allows Bus & Delivery Truck into Alberto by reducing queuing, gridlock and EMS blockages The proposed sidewalk replacement on the south side of PD along Hwy 9 is purely cosmetic in nature and solves no actual Environmental Impact 18 FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-5: Widen Hwy-9 by one lane each direction between the Hwy-17 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 This Major Environmental Impact Design defect is not recognized in the FEIR or addressed in any Mit igation • PHc~ o :., .. , o:. R2 o:..u o:...,.... o:.~a o:.. .. o:. 07 o:.v.. .. l~tt.cnt o:.curwl o:.c .... o:. t uml O:..TuM1 o:. fot l tvMI.Mt <~ 'J r • • •l....-n ._.~,> E!l -:>......,. ......... •.0~~ ·E!l f'_ ... ,_ e._""" ~e ·~ 0 1:1-• E!l li:IIJOa..;,..,.. -·l!l ~o. ... ·DO w- > D .. Go:.., ··D (ii)Giobol •··-• ·oo ..... This is needed because : -Each end of the 4 -lane Hwy 17 overpass is 1 Hwy-91ane for a hundred feet or so • 0 X -Since Hwy-9 is 11ane in each direction, there is not sufficient room to extend the EB left turn pocket into Alberto Way by enough to avoid queued Present+ PO generated Busy Period traffic from creating AM Rush Hour Gridlock (see our Traffic Study findings & busy period corrections) -Widens Hwy 9 from 11ane to 2 in the west d i rection from the Hwy 17 Overpass to Alberto Way -Eliminate the gridlock and congestion as well as to extend the left turn lane from Hwy-9 east bound into Alberto to control EB queuing, gridlock and EMS blockages -It is a step that enables the renovation ofthe 17 & 9 Intersection to handle the increased traffic actually to be caused by the correct traffic volumes generated by the PD as well as futu r e increases 19 FEIR 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 Overpa ss and the 2 lane sections on both sides . :~: . • PIAu< o:.l , 0 -!.lt.l a:.l) o:..~ a: • ..s o:. ., o:..tt7 D:. Vo'iltl.-.c o :.c\lf\"l 0:. Cv:w a :. tt.lfftl 0 l•lwn 1 o:. lt'CI.bm' ..... C. "I I• • • l ... IS ~'*"Y n e ~,......,. ·0~- ·I!JI"s.. ........ l .... e,. Pltc" •el "PMm O l:l- ·i!J ~JOc"'~ • I!J V o .... · OQ w.- • O *"""Y • o "~A.ettftt$• • 0 ..... This is needed because: X The PO, if built, would otherwise foreclose the possibility of ever rebuilding the Hwys 17 & 9 intersection since the placement of the proposed buildings location and footprint are on top of land needed to rebuild the intersection. Or is the PO were built, renovating the Intersection would require the removal of significant portions of the PO at a high cost to Caltrans and Los Gatos. Our Citizens Opposition report filed on August 4 detailed these changes as well. ALTERNATIVES (EIR 6: 1 -12): Alternatives Considered Alternative #1 : No Project/Existing Square Footage . We disagree that the existing square footage alternative would "not be consistent with the propose d project's objectives" or only "partially" met. The only question would be how to provide a building that satisfies the wishes of high-tech office users 20 in Class A office space . Surely it would be possible with a creative design and with some selectivity in tenants. Alternative #2: Reduced Project. The one-story underground parking garage would carry the negative impacts we raised in Traffic and Transportation and Air Quality. # The EIR contains errors of omission, uses misleading or incorrect statistics at times, and glosses over negative impacts with inadequate mitigations. We also feel it lacks objectivity because the res idents did not have adequate input though joint interaction with planning staff and developers. The developers seemed to not be interested in communicating with the residents, Mr. Lamb telling some he cared about the building, not the residents. He invited residents from The Commons to a meeting, yet did not tell them in what room the meeting would be held, and when the elderly residents arrived they found a hot, stuffy room with no chairs . Some could not stand for the entire meeting. Many people move to Los Gatos to escape the traffic and the Silicon Valley. Some live here all their lives to enjoy the unique life style. Moving this massive commercial building with its increased traffic literally into our back yards, would lead to the undermining or destruction of the very thing that has made Los Gatos a special community. Thank you for considering our input. Sincerely, /S/ Bob Burke Citizens of The Pueblo De Los Gatos /S/ Debra Chin Citizens of Bella Vista Village /S/ Roman Rufanov Cit izens of The Casitas #4 21 8/17/2016 Gmail-RE : Hi from Bob Burke GmaH Bob Burke <bobburkeat@gmail.com> RE: Hi from Bob Burke 1 message Walik, Bernard@DOT <bemard.walik@dot.ca.gov> To: Bob Burke <bobburkeat@gmail.com> Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 7:46AM Bob, This project is demolishing the existing 30K sf of office building and replacing it with 93 .5K sf. Over the history of this project we have repeatedly informed the Lead Agency that a Traffic Control Plan must be submitted for Caltrans approval and that an encroachment permit is required for the work proposed within Caltrans ROW. Submittal of a TCP is even a Condition of Approval for the p roject and is to address the pha sed construction traffic impacts. If there is as much constru ction traffic as you say, then the developer will need to pay to cover the damage in order to receive the perm it. There are several other "pending developments" in the vicin ity, but I am not sure if you are referring to cumu lative construction impacts. Caltrans also asked for payment of an ad-hoc fee and fair share fee to fund m itigation for impacts to State facilities due to this project. The General Plan 2020 Environmental Impact Report concluded that build out of the GP would result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with transportation and circulation because mechanisms are not currently in place (as of the date of the letter 01/15/16) to fund the required improve ments. The Traffic Impact Analysis states the project is required to pay a Traffic Impact Fee , as do all new developments in Los Gatos, unrelated to CEQA. The current fee is $879/new trip generated, so the ass ociated TIF fo r thi s project is $615,300 to go to Complete Streets Improvements, new path and bridge for bikes and pedestria ns and intersection improve ments. I hope this information is useful. Be rnie https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O/?ui =2&ik=d 13cf2cd0c&view=pt&search=inbox&th=15698f7da09731ee&siml=15698f7da09731ee 1/1 Jennifer Armer From: Sent: Jo: Subject:· Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Cathy J. Cathey <ccathey@bfr.com> Thursday, August 18, 2016 10:31 AM Jennifer Armer 401-405 Alberto Way Project 401.405 Alberto Way 8.18 .16.docx Follow up Flagged Thank you for reading the attached. Cathy Cathey Commercial Sales Manager Brook Furniture Rental 799 E El Camino Real Suite 200 Sunnyvale, Ca 94087 Cell 408 605-2360 Phone 408 720-1252 Fax 408 720-1258 ccathey@bfr.com www.bfr.com 1 August 18, 2016 Attn: Jennifer Armer RE : 401-405 Alberto Way Project As I went on the planning site today regarding the 401-405 Alberto Way pending project, I was struck by the town's tag line -"Small town service, Community stewardship, Future focus". I've been a resident of the TOWN of Los Gatos for the past 26 years, and I have lived on Alberto Way for the past 13 years at 420 Alberto Way. Over these years I have seen many changes to the town's environment-many of them positive and in keeping with the nature of our TOWN. However, during the past few years, I have noticed the dramatic increase of traffic (and non-stop complaints about this from all residents), increased large expansion of companies such as Netflix (although Netflix is in a primarily commercial area), and proposed LARGE developments such as the North 40, which, if approved, will bring more traffic, school crowding, etc. to our already congested town. The proposed 401-405 Alberto Way project, in my opinion, presents a crucial crossroads to the planning committee and the town council. What is Los Gatos today? What do we want to be in the future? How does this project support the community and especially all of the existing residents on Alberto Way? Most importantly, to where is the soul of our town headed? Do we want to become "city-like"? Do we have more interest in the revenues of this 401-405 project than the many negatives that this project will impose on the all of our town's residents-traffic, safety, aesthetics? Because I don't think that we can have it all-We can either be "Small town service, Community Stewardship, Future Focus", OR we need ·to decide that we want to be just another b ig city, with large commercial properties, less charm, less community spirit. Let's not take the soul of our town onto the "Highway to Hell". Please vote NO NO NO on the 401-405 project! Thank you , Cathy Cathey 420 Alberto Way #44 Los Gatos, Ca 95032 Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: August 18, 2016 Planning Commission : J Scott <gatosbella@gmail.com> Thursday, Augu st 18, 2016 10:53 AM Jennifer Armer J Scott Planning Commiss ion re; Alberto Way PlanningcommLG.docx Thank you for spending the time to review each and every comment the community is sending you regarding the dreadful project submitted for 401-409 Alberto Way . As a neighborhood (250+), we plan to take all necessary measures to protect our health, safety, and property values, and urge you to not allow this monstrous project be built in a residential neighborhood. It's far too large for this very narrow cui de sac and will devastate and disrupt the lives of so many residents, both on Alberto Way and beyond . I live here in Los Gatos because of the small town charm and the stunning beauty and the fact that I can be almost anywhere around town in a matter of minutes. I'm scared to think what will happen to this place I call home if this project gets approved. Everything I love about being here will be compromised . I respectfully ask that you honor the residents of this beautiful town of Los Gatos, the Commercial Design guidelines and the 2020 General Plan and vote against allowing this project to move forward . Sincerely, J annette Scott 420 Alberto Way #18 gatosbella@gmai l.com 1 August 18, 2016 Planning Commissioners Town of Los Gatos Dear Commissioners I am a resident in the Pueblo De Los Gatos condominiums at 420 Alberto Way, immediately across from the proposed development at 401-409 Alberto Way. I have been a Los Gatos resident since 2000, and my son has gone to Los Gatos elementary, middle and high schools, just graduating this year. My husband commutes out of ovr town for work, and I work from home in my own business as I could not find outside employment that would allow me to work from home while my son was in school. I ask that you deny the current proposed development for these reasons: The proposed i ncrease in square footage from the existing buildings to the new buildings is MASSIVE. It is over 3 times the size of the current buildings , has little to no frontage, and will tower in comparison to its surroundings. It will block our view of the Santa Cruz mountains, replacing it with a view of the buildings and possibly their own greenery, but nothing in comparision to the view we now have. It will block sunlight to the street and neighboring properties . It does not fit in w ith the character of our town or our neighborhood. If you look across the street and down 5 properties it is definitely massively oversized for the neighborhood. This development as proposed will bring tremendous traffic to our streets , not only Alberto Way but also Los Gatos Saratoga Road, Highway 17, Los Gatos Boulevard, Un iversity Ave and Santa Cruz Avenue, as people commute to and from work in the complex. Los Gatos Saratoga road currently gets quite backed up in the commuter hours, especially when school is in session. With traffic exiting from Highway 17 Southbound onto Los Gatos Saratoga road that will make the back up worse, especially for those trying to enter Highway 17 Northbound or continue to Los Gatos Boulevard heading for Van Meter or Los Gatos High, and make it nearly impossible for traffic exiting from Highway 17 northbound to blend in , and especially difficult to migrate to the left turn lane should they be trying to go to Alberto Way. All employee parking for the building will be directed to the underground garage, resulting in back-up of traffic blocking left hand turns from our driveway onto Alberto, and also causing delay to all res idential traffic entering Alberto Way. It will also make it more difficult for all residential traffic exiting Alberto Way to make turns at the light on Los Gatos Saratoga Road . An argument for tt"le buii€Jing project is that a high number of employees will not actually commute to work in the building but work from home. I do not believe that the number of employees allowed to do this will make much of a difference, especially using my own experience of not being able to find a corporate position with an employer that would allow me to do exactly that. Another argument is that some employees will use mass transit. I believe the only mass transit available to Los Gatos is a city bus, which is not very convenient to and within Los Gatos, and I believe most employees will opt to drive their own cars instead. Walking or riding bikes has been suggested, and I can say from my own experience that trying to do these things in either direction on Los Gatos Saratoga road is unsafe. Riding a bike is definitely unsafe, especially trying to negotiate the entrances and exits from Highway 17, and walking is the same. There isn't even sidewalks on the southbound sections of Los Gatos Saratoga road. I think these alternatives are only paper alternatives, and most reasonable, sane people will not opt to use them. -This is the only road entry point for Alberto Way, and allowing traffic to be increased to this extent is unsafe for residents. In the event of an emergency it would make it very difficult to exit the street at all, and possibly impede emergency personnel into the neighborhood. If traffic back ups occur we have no recourse other than to sit and wait for traffic to clear to exit our neighborhood. We have no back way in or out, no way to get around the traffic. The proposed development will remove existing parking spaces from the street. There will be cars or trucks parked on our streets that simply do not want to park in their structure or don't fit in their structure, taking parking away from our residents and guests. During construction there will be lots of traffic, dirt, dust, airborn particulates, parking on our streets, street closures, road work, etc, etc, etc. -This massive proposed structure is not in character with our neighborhood, or with the character of our town, and I ask that you deny it. Thank you, Concerned Neighbor 420 Alberto Way Los Gatos Ca 95032 August 18, 2016 Ms . Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Community Development Departm ent 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Phone : (408) 354-6872 Email : jarmer@losgatosca .gov RE : Pl anning Commission Public Hearing of Augu st 10, 2016 401-405 Alberto Way Architecture and Site Application 5-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 APN 529 -23 -018 RECE IVED li.LJG 1 D 2016 TOifVN O F LOS G,6.TOS PLAN~~ING D!VlS!ON Thank you for the comprehensive presentation regarding the above-referenced project to the Planning Commission at its hearing of Augu st 10, 2016. In anticipation of the continued Planning Commission scheduled for August 24t h, we summarized the public and Plann ing Commi ssion's comments from la st week's meeting and prepared the attached supplemental respon ses to each of the comments to assist the Commi ss ion in its deliberations at ne xt week's Planning Commission meeting. Our supplemental respon ses are set forth in Attachment A. While we und er stand that Vice Chair Kane closed the public hearing at last week's meeting, Vice Chair Kane stated that written comments may still be submitted prior to ne xt week's meeting. Accordingly, we have prepared the enclo sed supplemental responses to comments for the Commi ssi on 's consideration . Please f eel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Shane Arters Principal & COO BN 2 1499987v3 525 Mi ddlefield Road, Su1te 118, Menlo Park. CA 94025 1 6 50.326.1600 Applicant Responses to Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission meeting-August 10, 2016 ATTACHMENT A RESPONSES TO AUGUST 10, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS INTRODUCTION On August 10, 2016, the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos initiated its deliberations regarding the 401 to 409 Alberto Way Project (project) concerning the proposed demolition of three existing office buildings and construction of two new, two-story office buildings with underground parking. We have included responses below to oral comments made at the meeting and recent written comments submitted to the Town of Los Gatos prior to the August 10, 2016 Planning Commission public hearing on the project.1 MEETING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Responses to Public Hearing Comments The Planning Commission expressed some concern before Commissioner Kane opened the public hearing that additional information was submitted by the applicant at the meeting. We prepared a PowerPoint presentation for the Planning Commission meeting in order to assist the Planning Commission and public in reviewing the project and as a tool for following our presentation . All of the information presented at the August lOth meeting was previously provided in our application materials and contained in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and supporting technical studies, and we summarized the information in our PowerPoint presentation for the Commission's consideration. None of the information presented at the hearing, and none of the supplemental responses presented below, constitute new information for purposes of triggering the need for recirculation of the EIR. We are providing the following supplemental responses in an effort to provide the Planning Commission with a comprehensive response to the questions raised at the August lOt h public hearing. To the extent that multiple commenters raised the same concern, we have provided a response to the comment category or cross -referenced prior responses, as appropriate. Christie C. (420 Alberto Way) -Town growth and mass of buildings 1 First names and initials are used for public comments to identify speakers to avoid m isspelling of names. The comments summarized in this attachment are not intended to reiterate the precise comment, but rather focus on the commenter's general concern or question. BN 21499987v3 2 Applicant Responses to Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission meeting-August 10, 2016 Thomas D. (420 Alberto Way)-Obstructed view, size, height, mass of building, and obstructed view APPLICANT RESPONSE The project buildings meet all Town Codes, regulations, zoning, and the General Plan land use designation and land use policies, and building guidelines as summarized in the Staff Report, the EIR and supporting documents. The project is subject to Planning Commission review and discretion, and the Commission has the author ity to approve the height of the peak of the entry elements in accordance with the Town Code (Section 29.10.090). As we indicated in our responses to comments from the Commission at the August lOth meeting, LP Acquisitions revised the Project design based on feedback from the community by slightly reducing the square footage of the building . As staff noted at the hearing, we revised the design to step back the second floor and changed the roof forms. Additionally, the ground floor of the building nearest Alberto Way and Los Gatos Blvd./Highway 9 is 10 feet below the grade of the roadway, and the building is hidden by trees in order to further screen views for the surrounding residents. The following photograph is intended to provide a visual simulation of our efforts to address the size and massing of the building in a manner that is compatible with the commercial buildings on the other side of Alberto Way. Mark R. -Town ordinance requires parking at 4 spaces per 1,000 square -feet of building. In looking at towns like this in the Bay Area, as opposed to nation-wide averages, where property values are such that you can have call -centers and similar uses, actual parking rates in a shared BN 21 499987v3 3 Applicant Responses to Town of los Gatos Planning Commission meeting-August 10, 2016 parking environment range from 2.25 spaces to 1,000 sf to 3.0 spaces per 1,000 sf (for a stan d- alone building). These rates are significantly lower than what the Town requires . APPLICANT RESPONSE We are committed to satisfying the applicable requirements of the Town Code. Consequently, the project meets the Town parking requirements. If the Town is interested in further reducing the number of parking spaces at the site in response to comments from the public, the Town could consider as a traffic demand management measure replacing several vehicle parking spaces with the proposed structured bicycle parking spaces included in the Traffic Demand Management (TOM) Program. Another option would be that the Town could apply the parking ratios to the occupied area of the building and exclude the area that does not generate traffic, such as restrooms, utility rooms, elevators, stairs, and other area related to vertical transportation. The project TOM program incorporates various measures (e.g., bicycle parking, enhanced pedestrian/bicycle connectivity, etc.) in order to reduce trip generation so that while the project complies with the Town Code required number of parking stalls, we anticipate that many of the spaces may actually be unused. Raymond T.-Safety and access on Alberto Way APPLICANT RESPONSE The project includes safety an d access improvements as described on page 3-177 through 3-179 of the Draft EIR which are designed to facilitate safe pedestrian and bicycle movement between the project si te an d nearby transit stops, and to minimize potential conflicts for emergency vehicle access. Additionally, eliminating the on-street parking along the Alberto Way frontage of the project will help by eliminating one potential sou rce of conflict with traffic, easing access for traffic, and accomm odating Emergency Vehicles on Alberto Way. As noted, emergency responders have a second access option through the fire road through the Bella Vista area. The Santa Clara County Fire District has reviewed th e project and ha s confi rmed that the project meets Fire District safety requirements. John M. -Morning peak-hour traffic APPLICANT RESPONSE Th e 401 to 409 Alberto Way Final Transportation Impact Analysis was prepared by Hexagon Tran sportation Consultants in 2016 (Traffic Impact Analysis). As stated on page 3-141, th e Town's transportation consultant p eer reviewed the Tran sportation Impact Analysis . The Traffic Impact Analysis an d Section 3.11, Transportation and Traffic, chapter of the EIR indicate that the project would result in a slight net increase in morning peak traffic of 134 cars (see pages 3-163 through 3-175 of the EIR). The traffic impact would be mitigated to a less- than-significant level as sta ted on page 3-175 of the EIR. The assumption that the p roject would generate an additional 390 cars is inconsistent with the projected inc rease calculated BN 214 9998 7v3 4 Applicant Re sponse s to Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission meeting-August 10, 2016 according to standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, g th Edition trip generation rates as stated and analyzed in the traffic report and peer reviewed and accepted by the Town's transportation consultant. Caltrans has a "Limit of Access " line that follows the State Highway 17 right-of-way . CaiTrans has adopted a policy that precludes driveways within its right-of-way. Thus , direct access from Highway 17 would require that the State grant a waiver of its policy. Susan C. (435 Alberto Way) -Traffic during construction and in the future and safety . APPLICANT RESPONSE As indicated by staff at the Planning Commission meeting and explained in the EIR and required in the Project conditions of approval (see e.g., Condition of Approval #90 and #94), the project includes a Construction Traffic Management Plan in accordance with Town requirements. The Construction Traffic Management Plan will be implemented during all demolition, excavation, and construction phases . We also intend to apply the "lessons learned" from our experience with other projects in constrained locations and adjacent to residential neighborhoods so that we are proactive in the design and implementation of our Construction Traffic Management Plan in an effort to assure that traffic impacts are mitigated to a less-than-significant level as further explained in the Project EIR . As stated above, the projected trip generation during the AM peak hour is based on standard professional traffic engineering, the Town's traffic analysis methodology, and empirical data from other office developments throughout the country, and the traffic projections are not directly related to the number of parking spaces included in the proposed project. Jennifer L. (420 Alberto Way) -Height, mass, general square-footage shadows and views . APPLICANT RESPONSE As stated above, the project complies with the General Plan and zon ing, height, and design regulations as further discussed in the staff report and EIR . The Town regulates use of the building through its conditional use permits. The plans include a tree-lined sidewalk that is separated from the roadway with a landscaped parkway . The tree species has a scaffold height and canopy that can provide further shade for the sidewalk. Richard B. (182 Cuesta de Los Gatos Way (Bella Vista))-Mass and size , traffic and small street Melanie K. (174 Cuesta de Los Gatos Way (Bella Vista Village development))-Size, mass and traffic, size of Alberto Way, and shadows BN 21499987v3 5 Applicant Responses to Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission meeting-August 10, 2016 APPLICANT RESPONSE As stated above and explained in the Staff Report, the project buildings meet all Town Codes, regulations, zoning, the General Plan, and building guidelines. Commercial office, commercial restaurant, medical, and hotel uses, as well as the residential condos, townhouses, and senior independent community are located along Alberto Way. The existing residential condominium building across the street from the project site is 33-feet in height, which is comparable to the height of our project buildings. Our project is in proportion with the build ings located in the surrounding neighborhood . louis D. (449 Alberto Way)-Excavation construct ion traffic, excavation , construction traffic damaging pavement. Project traffic, bike lane and roof. APPLICANT RESPONSE As stated above and described by Town Staff at the Planning Commission meeting, a Town- required Con struction Management Plan will be implemented during all demol ition, excavation, and construction phase s. The Town's permits require the permittee to repair any damage caused by the construction activities . As stated by the Town Staff, above, the Traffic Report was provided by a traffic engineer prepared for the applicant and reviewed by Town Staff and approved by the Town's traffic consultant . The Town's EIR consultant reviewed the report and then incorporated the information into the EIR following Town Staff review. Additionally, as described in Section 3.11 of the EIR, the project includes many off-site (within the public right-of-way) improvements that will be constructed and paid for by the applicant, on both Alberto Way and Los Gatos Boulevard (Highway 9.) These include improvements for traffic safety, including pedestrian and bicycle safety, as well as traffic management as recommended by Town staff and the transportation consultants. Additionally, in accordance with Condition 82 and as stated by staff at the hearing, the project's traffic impact mitigation fee is estimated at $615,400. That fee will be used to fund transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development in Los Gatos . Marietta R (449 Alberto Way)-Issues : health, safety and welfare, traffic, density demolition, excavation, emergency access, noise and air polluti on . APPLICANT RESPONSE The Planning Department's rigorous review and project requirements address the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and property owners. The EIR addressed public health, safety, noise, air quality, land use and traffic impacts in detail and found, after extensive study, that the project, as proposed, poses a less than a significant impact. Regarding emergency vehicle access, pages 3-175 through 3-180 of the EIR evaluate potential safety hazards and conclude that the impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The Santa Clara County Fire District has reviewed the plans and confirmed that the project meets fire department requirements for safety. BN 2 1499987v3 6 Applicant Responses to Town of Lo s Gatos Planning Commission meet ing-August 10, 2016 Bob B. (420 Alberto) -Conformance with 2020 General Plan in sections 2 Vision, 3 Land Use, 4 Community Design and Transportation, traffic, emergency access, traffic report assumptions., weekend traffic in Town. APPLICANT RESPONSE As stated above, the project complies with the Town's General Plan, Town Codes, Zoning, and building guidelines and the analysis is based on established and standard methodology as further explained on page 2-23 and throughout Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR. Each of the environmental topics evaluated in Section 3 include a subsection identifying applicable General Plan 2020 goals and policies as well as an analysis of the project's compliance with the applicable goals and policies. Loretta F. (451 Alberto Way in Los Gatos Condos)-Traffic, air quality and mitigations . APPLICANT RESPONSE As stated earlier, the documents supporting this application, along with the Town's independ ent analysis, and the Staff Report indicate that this project would not result in any significant environmental impacts, and concluded that the project complies with the Town's codes, zoning regulations, and General Plan . A detailed analysis of air quality impacts, including its effect on human health and sensitive populations is included in Section 3. 2 of the EIR beginning on page 3-36. Mitigation mea sure s have been identified to reduce impacts to a level considered l ess than significant on pages 3-35 (Mitigation Measu re AQ-1) through 3-37 (Mitigation Measure s AQ-2 and AQ-3 ), respectively . Ba se d on this analysis, and implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would be in compliance with the 2010 Clean Air Plan. As identified on page 3-164 of the EIR, the project would generate an increa se in 134 project relat ed trips during the AM peak hour and 138 trips during the PM peak hour. Although the intersection analysis showed that all the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours under existing plus project conditions, in order to ensure that potential impacts would remain les s than sig nifica nt, mitigation measures were identified (see Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2 on pages 3-175 and 3-177 of the EIR). Pat L. (Comptroller for CWA Realty, 405 to 409 Alb erto Way)-Age of buildings, buildings obsolete, and traffic entering property APPLICANT RESPONSE The existing commercial office buildings are the same u se as the propose d use . The increase in traffic generation for the propo se d project is the incremental increase, rather than total traffic to the site. Th e Draft EIR evaluates the reasonable worst ca se conditions when comparing project trip generation to baseline conditions. The EIR conclude s that traffic impacts are less than significant (refer to pages 3-163 through 3-175 of the EIR). Ben R. (420 Alberto Way)-2020 General Plan conformance, through traffic, and so lar access, noise BN 2 1499987v3 7 Applicant Responses to Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission meeting-August 10, 2016 APPLICANT RESPONSE As previously stated the project conforms to the General Plan, as indicated in the supporting documents, and Town Staff review. Refer to Section 2.4 of the EIR, as well as Section 3.0 of the EIR. Each environmental topic identified in Section 3.0 includes a subsection on conformance with the applicable 2020 General Plan and Los Gatos Sustainability policies, (e .g. see EIR page 3-156 through 3-159, Town of Los Gatos General Plan goals and policies related to transportation and traffic. Catherine I. {420 Alberto Way) Views, construction access , traffic and work hours. RESPONSE The office buildings' predominate use would be during normal business hours. Th e underground parking garage is normally open from 6:00AM to 6:00PM . An automatic gate activates to let vehicles out at any time. Key cards may be employed to allow access, as necessary after the garage gate is closed . We do not expect anyone beyond the office patrons would be allowed to park on -s ite. Roman R. {435 Alberto Way)-Safety for children, project scale and traffic. Paul G.-Town lack of attendance at community meeting, traffic. Timothy L. (Fac i lities Manager of current buildings, 405 to 409 Alberto Way)-Issues with access in or out as reported for the Existing Setting conditions in the EIR, parking spaces. APPLICANT RESPONSE (3 comments above) As mentioned above, the increa se in traffic i s not related to the number of parking spaces at the propo se d building, particularly when the existing building generates substantial traffic. The Transportation Impact Analysis and Section 3.11 descr ibe existing traffic conditions associated with the occupied buildings . The existing office buildings at 401 to 409 Alberto Way have 122 available parking spaces. Traffic generated at the existing facility in the AM peak is 29 vehicles inbound and 13 vehicles outbound for a total of 42 trips. Traffic generated at the existing office buildings in the PM peak i s 34 vehicle s inbound and 47 outbound for a total of 81 trips. Sherry B. (420 Alberto Way)-Traffic, access, on street parking, traffic report timing [school in session]. APPLICANT RESPONSE Hexagon conducted traffic counts for the project site in January and May 2015 when sc hool was in session. While the trip reduction percentage may vary, employees who telecommute reduce vehicle trips during peak commute periods. The Project's Transportation Demand Management Program include telecommuting, walking, bicycling, carpooling, etc. and other transportation BN 2 1499987 v3 8 Applicant Responses to Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission meeting-August 10, 2016 demand measures as part of a comprehensive Traffic Demand Management strategy to further reduce trip generation . As stated in the Draft EIR and staff report, the removal of parking spaces along the frontage of 405 to 409 Alberto Way allows additional area to accommodate traffic and emergency vehicles, while removing a potential source of conflict with emergency response vehicles. Paulette S. (420 Alberto Way) -Building size and scale, lack of mass transit. Sergei M. -Study time period, traffic, bike access, school access for worker children Jean-Paul M. -Traffic, concerns about left turn into project, stop sign . APPLICANT RESPONSE The proposed location of the mai n driveway into the property and underground parking access would be set back as far from the intersection with Los Gatos/Saratoga Blvd . as feasible in order to foster safe and efficient traffic movements. Based on existing traffic conditions and project vehicular trips, a stop sign would not be warranted along Alberto Way at either driveway. Vehicles exiting the site are required to stop and check traffic before entering Alberto Way. Debora C (154 Maggie Ct. in Bella Vista Townhomes)-Mass and scale, FAR, traffic, safety, street width, street parking, character and collaboration with community APPLICANT RESPONSE As stated above, the project complies with the General Plan and zoning, height, and design regulations as further discussed in the staff report and sections 2.4 and 3 .0 of the EIR . BN 21499987v3 9