Attachment 05TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 2
DESK ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: August 24, 2016
PREPARED BY:
APPLICATION NO:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/
CONTACT PERSON:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICATION
SUMMARY:
EXHIBITS:
Jennifer Armer, A ssociate Planner
jarmer@los 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 of the
intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road . The
westerly rear of the 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, Staff Report:
2. Location Map
3. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages)
4. Required CEQA Findings ofFact (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. LetterofOutreach Conducted (40 pages), received February 10,
2016
9. Second Letter of Neighborhood Outreach (26 pages), received
August 3, 2016
10. Consulting Arborist 's Report ( 41 pages), dated September 26,
2015
ATTACHMENT 5
Planning Commission Desk Item -Page 2
401-409 Alberto Way Project
August 24, 2016
REMARKS:
11 . Architectural Consultant's First Report (five pages), received
September 10, 2015
12. Architectural Consultant's Final Report (five pages), received
March 18,2016
13. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Meeting minutes,
June 10, 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 10, 2016
Previously received with August 24, 2016 Staff Report:
18 . Comments received from 11 :0 1 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
Received with this Desk Item:
20. Comments received from 11 :01 a.m . on Thursday, August 18 ,
2016 to 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 24,2016
21. Applicant's Response Letter, received August 24, 2016
The attached public comments (Exhibit 20) and a response letter from the Applicant (Exhibit 21)
were received after distribution of the staff report.
P P. ed by:
ennifer Armer, AICP
Associate Planner
JP:JA:cg
f\.pproved by:
Joel Paulson, AICP
Community Development Director
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2016\AibettoWay401-409 08.24.16 CU P AS EIR-DESK.doc x
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Raymond Toney < raymond.toney2@verizon.net >
Saturday, August 20, 2016 9:21 AM
Jennifer Armer
401-409 Alberto Way .. NEW INFORMATION.
Follow up
Flagged
Dear Ms.Armer: Due to recent actions by the Town Of Los Gatos to deter Santa Cruz t raffic from going through
downtown, huge green signs directing traffic to Hiway 17, have been painted on the streets directing traffic onto Los
Gatos-Saratoga Rd . which intersects with Alberto Way. This action has greatly increased the flow of motor vehicles past
the projected development and negates the traffic count being told to the Planning Comm ission by the applicant. A new
traffic study should be required bringing that count up to date. I trust this information will be provided to the
Commissioners . Very truly yours, Raymond M . Toney, Past President, Los Gatos Commons HOA, 453 Alberto Way,
Los Gatos, Ca . 95032 (408)354-5735 .
EXHIBIT 2 0
1
August 21, 2016
To: The Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos via Staff, Jennifer Armer & Joel Paulson.
This Addendum to the Los Gatos Citizens Report of August 18, 2016 by the Residents of the Pueblo de
Los Gatos, Bella Vista Village and is submitted to Planning for inclusion with the package distributed
before the August 24 Planning Commissioners meeting to summarize our of findings that enable The
Commission to Deny the Conditional Use Permit.
We are joined by the Commons of Los Gatos in this submission.
/S/ Loretta Fowler for Los Gatos Commons
/5/ Debra Chin for Bella Vista Village
/5/ Roman Rufanov for Las Casitas# 4
/5/ Bob Burke for the Pueblo de Los Gatos
Findings that support Denial of a Conditional Use Permit fo r 401 -409
Alberto Way as required by Sec 29.20.190 of Town Code
1. The Proposed Development is not in harmony with these specific
provisions or objectives of the 2020 General Plan
In each section below, we describe why the Present Application should not be approved.
2020 General Plan Section 2: Vision
(each diamond is a General Plan requirement)
+ Fo ster a pedestrian-oriented community with a small town character;
The Proposed Development is not in harmony because : Alberto Way ha s two commercial properties at
its intersec tion with Hwy 9 presently and one at the end. We have constant traffic issues with the speed
of vehicles to and from the commercial property at the end . The principal problem is that the curve
between 420 and [401-409 & 43S]Iimits sight. When limited sight is combined with speed, there are
frequent near misses.
Residents from Alberto Way frequently walk to Town and must cross two dangerous Hwy 17 exit ramps .
Foliage severely limits visibility to pedestrians and drivers, who cannot see pedestrians until they're
within unsafe stopping distance .
There is no Hwy 17 exit r amp accident record described within the EIR.
The increased vehicular traffic generated by the PO disrupts our pedestrian use of the Hwy9/ Alberto
Way intersection. We have a large population of children and seniors. There is no alternate Pedestrian
or vehicular exit from Alberto way.
Furthermore, the Proposed Development (PD) contains no provisions to address the disruption from
higher vehicular traffic volume after completion nor the purported 15-16 month construction
disruption .
+Be a full service community that is also environmentally sensitive;
The Proposed Development is not in harmony because: The increased vehicular traffic during and after
construction will bring increased air pollution to Alberto Way. The construction itself will bring an
increased level of airborne allergens and air pollutants as computed by Roman Rufanov in his letter
contribution.
2020 General Plan Section 3: land Use
+The mandates of the Safety Element are reflected in the designation and lo cation of land use, the
permitted activities within designated areas, and the patterns of land use that support defensible space,
the Town's contingency
plan, and fire and other hazard mitigation.
The Proposed Development is not in harmony because: As noted in our Vision comments (above),
Pedestrian Safety is compromised both during co nstruction since it blocks our use of the sidewalk in
front of 401 -409 and after occupancy with the increased danger to pedestrians f rom the additional
traffic it generates.
The PO contains no design element to address the dangers it generates to pedestrian safe ty.
+Air quality is improved by land use patterns that minimize vehicle travel within the Town .
The Proposed Development is not in harmony because: The PO degrades air qua lity via the increased
vehicular traffic it generates, a special threat to our se niors and children
+The Conservation Element goals address protecting and enhancing the
natural environment. Programs that retain natural features such as tree
preservation, limited grading, and water conservation maintain the natural
character of Los Gatos.
The Proposed Development is not in harmony because: The PO removes many large mature trees &
bushes, then replace s them with small ones.
+The Open Space Element refers to the location, character, and use of parks, recreational facilit ies, and
preserved , unimproved land .
The Proposed Development is not in harmony because: The PO contains no significant ope n space that
can be used recreationally by the public despite using about 1 of the 2+ acres for build i ngs.
+ Distribution, location, and extent of land uses for categories of public or private uses. Such categories
include, but are not limited to housing, business, industry, open space, natural resources, recreation and
enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, and public buildings and grounds.
The Proposed Development is not in harmony because: The PD is so h igh that it destr oys the scenic
beauty enjoyed by Alberto Way Residents, our Visitors, Best Western Guests and employees of the local
businesses . Particularly hard hit are the 420 Alberto Way owners and res idents whose "View Unit
Condos" face Alberto Way, are along 420's South drive near Alberto Way; or are along the west side of
420's North Drive. All of these "View Units" have scenic, sunlit views today that the PD would, if built,
remove . This situation also occurs at 435 Alberto where the PD not only blocks the N. building's scenic
sunlit views but also affords PO 's 2nd floor Tenants a view into the ir children's bedrooms.
This will depress the market value of the "View Units," for which the PD does not propose to
compensate owners.
The PD furthermore attempts to remove about ten of "our" on-street parking spaces and LP
Acquisitions, LLP decl ines in meetings with us to provide any substitute parking to Alberto Way
Residents . We already have on-street parking congestion, which was made worse by the addition of Grill
57. All but 2 of 420 & 435 Alberto Way's Vis itors and many of their Residents use on-street parking: the
on-street parking was a desig n feature of Alberto Way.
+ Population density and building intensity standards for land use designations
The Proposed Development is not in harmony because : The PDs build ings are massive compared to
what's there now and to the residential buildings in the area . The PD is therefore incompatible with the
cha racter of the Neighborhood and transforms it from a low impact residential community in an open
space tucked away in a wooded area to a "concrete & glass jungle" dominated by a large commercial
space .
2020 General Plan Section 4 Community Design Element
The Proposed Development is not in harmony because : The Town Council & Planning Commission would
have heard a lot more from Alberto Way residents had LP Acquisitions, LLP Development presented us
with a rendering th at wa s representative of the actual proposed structure in 2015 and earlier this year
when it he ld the first few rounds of community meetings.
2. The PD does not conform to thes e Town of LG Policies:
Policy CD1 .1
Building elements shall be in proportion with those traditionally in the neighborhood.
The Proposed Development does not conform because:
At 93 ,000 sq . ft ., the PDs buildings are mass ive compared to what's on the site now and what's in the
neighborhood.
They are further proposed to be built so high that they deny us continued enjoyment of the
neighborhood's mountain views and depress property values in 420 Alberto Way's "View Units."
Policy CD1.2
New structures, remodels, landscapes, and hardscapes shall be designed to harmonize and blend with
the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in th.e area.
The Proposed Development does not conform because :
The PO's buildings by virtue of their size out-scale the neighborhood and elevate the pace of the
neighborhood's rhythm with the higher employee I visitor traffic during rush and during the new lunch
hour rush .
Policy CD1.4
Development on all elevations shall be of high quality design and construction, a positive addition to and
compatible with the Town 's ambiance. Development shall enhance the character and unique identity of
ex isting commercial and/or residential neighborhoods.
The Proposed Development does not conform because:
At the First community meeting, we were told by LP Acquisitions, LLP, in deta il, that the largest structure
would be about 5 feet taller than the current 2 story building on the back side of the main parking lot to
the business complex. We were shown the misleading illustration that appeared to support this
statement. We were also told that the building adjacent to that building, on the HWY 9 side of the lot,
would be added onto to meet the height of the other building. What has been showcased is two large
structures, with one towering above the existing buildings and situated up fro nt on the street side.
This will be a headache, an eyesore and a safety hazard , amongst other things.
Not until the Story Poles went up immediately across the street, did we, the residents of 420 Alberto
Way, realize how far from "harmony and blending" the LP Acquisitions, LLC illustration actually is .
3. The p r oposed use of the p roperty will detract from the exi s tin g balance
and di v ersit y of b u s iness es in the commercial district in w h ich the
building will sit.
Currently there are several small health care , property management & legal services businesses on the
site, which are diverse in their purpose and compatible with the size and design of the buildings
currently on Alberto Way. They have been notified to leave within the next 2 months by the current
Landlord and will not be returning to the area. This proposed project would undermine the current
character of the neighborhood.
The proposed building would detract from the existing land use mix and design by redu cing the
desirability of Alberto Wa y residential un its , and disco uraging pedestrians. Pedestrians could be
discouraged from walking to Grill 57, The Los Gatos Lodge and Satellite Health Care because of the
potential traffic of hundreds of cars
4 . The proposed use c r eates an over-concentration of similar types of large
busin esses in Los Gatos that offer no services to the local community
and on whose property we will not be welcome
LP Acquisitions LLP has disclosed in community outreach meetings that the target tenants are 1 or 2
large high tech companies for office space .
Comme r cial De sig n Guideline s Vi o late d
1.3 PURPOSE
The guidelines contained in this document are intended to accomplish the following:
• Provide .a greate r degree of project review and approval predictability.
Plan Deficiency: The guidelines in the Purpose section are not adhered to by the proposed project. The
project review was minimal from the perspective ofthe residents of Alberto Way. The project staff did
not interact in a significant way with the residents or attend the meetings held by the developer in the
neighborhood . The Developer held very few meetings and in his interaction with the residents was at
times not forthright or courteous; he made it clear he was not interested in the residents' input. The
guidelines call for the streamlining of the deve lopment review process by more clearly communicating
community expectations to property owners and developers. But the property owners did not have
much contact with the planning staff in the early stages of the review process and did not receive timely
information in the more recent time.
• Ensure that new development reinforces and supports the special qualities of the Town of Los Gatos.
Plan Deficiency: The proposed project does not reinforce and support the special qualities of the Town
of Los Gatos because the immense scale contrasts with any office building in the neighborhood or
downtown. Thus, the proposed building scale is not cons istent with the Town's small scale image .
• Maintain a building scale that is consistent with the Town's small scale image .
Plan Deficiency: The two massive proposed buildings are not consistent with the Town's small scale
image as is embodied in the existing residential developments and it looks more like it belongs in
downtown Sunnyvale or Mountain View.
• Reinforce the special qualities of the Town's visual character.
Plan Deficiency: The proposed buildings design is a significant departure from the visual character of
the entire n eighborhood .
• Protect property owner investments by discouraging inappropriate adjacent development.
Plan Deficiency: The size of the buildings, increased traffic and destruction of our parking, small town
demeanor mountain views will depress property values of all residential complexes on Alberto Way.
• Streamline the development review process by more clearly communicating community expectations
to property owners and developers.
Plan Deficiency: The communications between Town Planning Staff and affected Residents of Alberto
Way has been deficient. Clearly Planning Staff and Applicant have had extensive communications and
we've been left out in the cold.
• Provide visual continuity along street frontages.
Plan Deficiency: The proposed development is situated at the head of the street and presents a large
visual discontinuity if built.
• To encourage signs which are in scale and harmony with the architecture and the character of the
Town.
Plan Deficiency : There is no mention of Signage anywhere in the current Plan documents.
1.4 COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS
• Maintenance of the existing small town feel
Plan Deficiency: The project does not maintain the existing small town feel; it is massive i n scale, looks
like a downtown San Jose or San Mateo development and looms over the other structures on the street.
• Careful attention to architectural and landscape details similar to the Town's residential structures
Plan Deficiency:
• The project departs from the current small scale buildings with a strong pedestrian orientation
Plan Deficiency: There would not be a strong pedestrian orientation because access to the West is
made difficult by the dangerous ramp crossings between the proposed project site and the University
and Santa Cruz downtown streets.
• The sensitive interface of commercial development with adjacent residential neighborhoods
Plan Deficiency: This massive building clearly could not be described as providing a sensitive interface
of commercial development and adjacent residential neighborhoods.
• Strong encouragement of a unique Los Gatos scale and character
Plan Deficiency: This mass iv e building fails to encourage the unique scale and character of Los Gatos
and the site is more suitable for a remodel or replacement of the current footprint and limited to one
story so it does not interfere with existing mountain and sunset views.
1.5.1 Design to maintain and reinforce the unique scale and character of Los Gatos
a) Break overall building masses into segments similar to those of nearby structures and parcels.
Plan Deficiency: The Proposed Development is two massive buildings with 1 acre each under roof. It is
far and above the scale of all other nearby parcels and structures .
c) Avoid design which consists largely of boxes with applied design elements .
Plan Deficiency: The Proposed Development's two buildings are massive boxes with a minor
modification from pure rectangles.
g) Break facade segments into modules that reflect those common along nearby commercial building
frontages. For facades along streets that are closely related to nearby residences, break larger building
elements into modules that are sympathetic to the smaller scale of those houses.
Plan Deficiency: Facades contain one break. The buildings are not at all sympathetic to the smaller scale
of any of the nearby residential structures.
1.5 .2 Provide a richness of architectural facade depth and detail
a) Express columns and beams on the building's exterior.
Plan Deficiency : There are no columns.
b) Provide a number of facade layers (e.g., front of columns or pilasters, wall plane, window frame, and
window glass).
Plan Deficiency: There are no layers.
1.5.3 Provide a unified design around all sides of buildings
b) Where continuity of design is difficult to achieve, substantial landscaping should be provided to
screen the area . Los Gatos ex ample of facade depth and detail Los Gatos example above showing simple
reflection of front facade design on building side Commercial Design Guidelines
Plan Deficiency: The Proposed Development plans to remove all existing mature landscaping on 3 sides
and replace them with immature non substantial landscaping whose trees will take decades to screen
the area .
1.5.5 Integrate the screening for all trash and service areas into the design of the buildings.
Plan Deficiency: The Proposed Development plans to remove the existing trash & recycling area in the
rear of the building, place trash & recycling in the front where it blocks the PO's parking entrance and
place immature non substantial landscaping whose trees & bushes will take decades to screen the area.
The trash area will be near the sidewalk and the odors will be a nuisance to pedestrians .
1.5.6 Screen all roof equipment
e) Submit a roof plan at the time of submittal for review and approval. The plan shall show the location,
Trash enclosures that are well integrated into the building's design Arbors used to mitigate blank walls
Equipment screen integrated with building design Lattices and flowering vines used to mitigate blank
walls Commercial Design Guidelines. The type and size, including height, of all roof mounted equipment.
The application elevation and section drawings shall also show the location and size of all roof mounted
equipment.
Plan Deficiency: There is no roof plan showing screening of or any other plan showing the location of
the underground garage ventilation exit vents. Furthermore, no plan document illustrates garage
ventilation, which is required for air pollution con trol within the underground garage.
1.5.6 Operable windows are encouraged in recognition of the area's temperate climate and the typically
small scale of commercial structures.
Plan Deficiency: Nowhere does the Plan indicate any description of the Windows or the ir operability.
1.5.7 Provide visual buffering of on-s ite utility elements
a) Locate transformers, valves and similar elements where they will be least visible from public rights-of
way. If not possible, these elements should be placed underground or, at a minimum, screened from
view with walls and landscaping that relate to the remainder of the project.
Plan Deficiency: Transformer vaults are placed near Alberto Way and cannot be well hidden since no
foliage will grow over them: move to rear of property.
b) Utilize landscaping and/or walls to screen transformers and other utility elements if they must be
located in close proximity to the public right-of-way.
Plan Deficiency: Transformer vaults are placed near Alberto Way and cannot be well hidden since no
foliage will grow over them : move to rear of property.
1 .5.8 Subordinate park ing to the buildings
a) Avoid parking lots in locations that interrupt retail and/or structural continuity near front property
lines .
Plan Deficiency: The underground parking lot entrance and exit disrupt any possible retail use via their
lo ca tion at the front of the property.
6. Signage
Projects with multiple tenants will be required to prepare a Master Signage Program for review and
approval.
The program will establish the specific location and design for major project sign s (e .g ., Gro und Signs)
Plan Deficiency: There is no Master Signage Program in the Plan.
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ms. Armer
Amber Reynolds < areynolds@eigerbio.com >
Monday, August 22 , 2016 4:51 PM
Jennifer Armer
Planning
401-405 Alberto development project
My daughter and I own and occupy a townhome at 120 Cuesta De Los Gatos off Alberto Way in Los Gatos. I am writing
to voice my concern in regards to the proposed modifications to the property at 401-405 Alberto Way.
I respectfully request that you work with the developers on their plan to assure the following objectives are achieved:
1. The set back on Hwy 9 be sufficient to allow the State of California in the future and expand Hwy 9 including the
onramp to Hwy 17,
2. Create a ratio of parking spaces to square feet that will allow the parking needs of 401-405 Alberto Way to be
met by the development itself,
3. That the development be set back on Alberto to allow for the future widening of the intersection at Alberto
Way and Hwy 9
My primary concern is there would not be enough room in the new configuration of the site for the State of California to
widen the overpass that is adjacent to Alberto Way. This inability to increase the traffic mobility for Hwy 9/Hwy 17 on
ramp is deeply unsettling. Our community lacks any other way out. We MUST exit at Alberto and Hwy 9. The area is
already very heavily traveled and in need of increased capacity. Adding these additiona l vehicles combi ned with no
ability to increase the on ramp in the future is foolish.
We also have several units dedicated to the elderly on our street. I think the increased traffic, street parking and
nonresident activity in the area will make it harder for emergency vehicles to get the elderly in and out. It will also ma ke
it more difficult for the elderly themselves to enter and exit their community.
I also do not understand how 390 total parking spaces can service ~92K sq. feet of office space. That is approximately
236 sq. feet of office space for every vehicle. There are no buses, no public transit of any kind and the current office sq .
foot average per employee is 150 sq . feet, meaning the development should have ~613 parking spaces to accommodate
the employees that will occupy the space or conversely they should only be allowed to build ~59K sq . feet if they
maintain the 390 parking spaces. Note this means they do not intend to have businesses that receive customers on a
regular basis, that would further increase the need for parking.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my concerns .
Amber Reynolds
Corporate Controller
EIGER BioPharmaceuticals
, E/ J~ER
810PHAflMACEU71CAI S
350 Cambridge Ave, Ste 350
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650 .272.6138 main office
650.618.1621 main fax
1
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Planning Commission,
Christy Filice
Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:35 AM
Jennifer Armer
Please Save Alberto Way!
I live in the Pueblo de Los Gatos development off of Alberto Way, across from the proposed development of
401-409 Alberto Way. I am strongly opposed to the planned development as I am concerned about the heavy
traffic, pollution, and inevitable devaluation of my property that I have worked so hard to buy.
Daughter of two public school teachers, I was lucky to grow up in Los Gatos. I went to Blossom Hill
Elementary School, Fisher, and Los Gatos High School. I went on to live all over the country, Texas, Maryland,
and Washington D.C. while getting my undergrad in Finance at TCU and finally my MBA from Georgetown
University. I knew I always wanted to return to Los Gatos, where my parents still lived and the only place I ever
called home. At 34 years old, I bought my first home in Los Gatos on Alberto Way in the Pueblo de Los Gatos
development. As a single woman living in the Bay Area, this was difficult to do financially. I strongly believe
that the 401-409 Alberto Way Development will negatively impact my current lifestyle , bringing congestion
and pollution to our quaint street, in addition to blocking views of the hills and making it even more difficult
than it is now to access downtown Los Gatos safely. All of these concerns will also be the concerns of future
property buyers who would have otherwise considered Alberto Way for their new home, thus devaluing our
properties.
Please help us save Alberto Way by denying the development plans for 401-409 Alberto Way.
The Los Gatos High Alma Mater proudly states:
"Hail to dear Los Gatos High!
Alma mater fair,
Nestling 'neath a mountain sky
Like a jewel rare."
Los Gatos is a jewel. .. let's keep it that way!!
Best regards,
Christine Filice
Pueblo de Los Gatos Home Owner and Resident
I 1
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Planning Commission ...
Kathryn Azad <kathryn .azad@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, August 23 , 2016 11:48 AM
Jennifer Armer
401 -409 Alberto Way Project
I have been reading through the Commercial Design Guidelines of Los Gatos and find that there are many
guidelines that are not being followed with the purposed project that is about to proceed right in front of m y
home. (I live at 420 Alberto Way) Please refer to a few of the guidelines I have brought up to not stop the
project as a whole, but to have them revise according to the Los Gatos Guidelines which are in place to keep our
town & streets conducive and quaint.
1.3 Purpose-Maintain a building scale that is consistent with the Town's small scale image
(As of now, the purposed building is much larger than the scale of the existing building. Ther e will be
shadowing on our home at 420 Alberto way, we will lose the view of the mountains & sunsets)
1.4 COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS • Maintenance of the existing small town feel • Careful attention to
architectural and landscape details similar to the Town's residential structures • Small scale buildings with a
strong pedestrian orientation • The sensitive interface of commercial development with adjacent residential
neighborhoods • Strong encouragement of a unique Los Gatos scale and character (These are all great points
that are not being supported by the purposed project. This will NOT bring a small town feel, specially in a
predominant residential neighborhood)
Cont:
1.4 COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS • M aintenance of a sense of place with views of surroun ding hills
preserved • Designs adapted to a human and pedestrian scale rather than to an automobile scale • Scale and
character appropriate to the setting • Buildings over two stories are discouraged in areas cov ered by these
guidelines unless special circumstances warrant additional building height. (PLEASE DON'T TAKE OUR
VIEW AWAY. This 2-story purposed building is at the automobile scale. It's not appropriate to our setting or
conducive to the neighborhood.)
1.5 COMMON DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines apply to all commercial development in
the Town of Los Gatos regardless of location . 1.5 .1 Design to maintain and reinforce the unique scale and
character of Los Gatos a) Break ov erall building masses into segments similar to those of nearby structures and
parcels. (The size ofthe existing building is the unique scale & character of Los Gatos and works within our
quaint predominant residential neighborhood)
These are just a few of the guidelines that I don't feel are being taken into consideration. Please help protect our
town & street from becoming something other than it was meant to be. I know progress is inevitable, I just ask
for a revision to bring this project to a scale which is not only right per the guidelines but for the residences on
Alberto Way.
Thank You,
Kathryn Azad
1
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subj ect:
J Scott <gatosbella@gmail.com >
Wednesday, August 24, 2016 10:59 AM
Jennifer Armer
Tonight's meeting
*****PLANNING COMMISS ION *****
PLEASE SAY NO TO THIS PROJECT !
Send an important message tonight to the citizens of Los Gatos and greedy developers
that you care about the elements set forth in the 2020 General Plan and that you intend
to uphold you commitment to follow these guidelines with a NO vote on this massive
concrete box in the middle of our small town.
Kindly,
Jan nette Scott
Alberto Way
1
Jennifer Armer
Subject: RE : 475-48 5 Alberto Wa y
From: mmpmitzi @comcast.net [mailto:mm pmitzi@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 2:40 PM
To: Planning
Subject: 475-485 Alberto Way
Dear Council,
Another huge , hideous, modern building!!!! Please ...... Los Gatos is a quaint town ...... mostly
Victorian and Spanish architecture . Please don't allow this monstrosity in. The developers buying up
all of our land are NOT interested in our town ..... only money. Please don't allow it!! It's really getting
annoying!!!!
Thank you,
Mary Patterson
1
L T:l ACQYISITIONS
_l[ REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
August 24, 2016
Ms. Jennifer Arme r, Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Phone: (408) 354-6872
Email : jarmer@losgatosca.gov
RE: Planning Commission Public Hearing of August 24, 2016-Supplemental Responses
401-409 Alberto Way
Architecture and Site Application S-15-056
Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009
APN 529-23-018
We have reviewed the Staff Report for the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on August
24, 2016 regarding the 401-409 Alberto Way Project. Based on our review of the 15 comment
letters, most of the comment letters restate the comments' comments offered at the August
lOth Planning Commission public hearing. In anticipation of the continued Plann ing
Commission, we prepared the attached supplemental responses to address only the new
comments contained in Exhibit 18 to the August 24th Staff Report on the Final Environmental
Impact Report (11 EIR") for the 401-409 Alberto Way Project (11Project EIR") or new comments on
the 401-409 Alberto Way Project applications referenced above that were not previously
addressed in our comments at the August 10th Planning Commission meeting or in our August
19, 2016 supplemental responses because these comment letters were received after we
submitted our responses to the Town for inclusion in the Staff Report . Our supplemental
responses are set forth in Attachment A to this letter.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Shane Arters
BN 2 1528175v2
EXHIBIT~ l
525 Middlefield Road, Suite 118, lv'1 enlo Park, CA 94025 1 650.326.1600
Applicant's Supplemental Responses to Written Comments Dated August 24, 2016
ATTACHMENT A
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Introduction
Our August 19, 20161etter responded to the p r ior comments from the Planning Commission
meeting which restated comments submitted on the Draft EIR . Most ofthe comments
contained in the latest written comments relate to opposition to the proposed Project and
misstatements and perceived errors and omissions in EIR . Each of these issues was addressed
in the Final EIR , the August 10th Planning Commission Staff Report and our letter dated August
19, 2016 submitted to the Planning Department.
The comment letter from the Los Gatos Commons Committee Opposing the Alberto Way
Project ("Commons") resembles the letter submitted by the Citizens of Alberto Way comprised
of the Casitas, Pueblo de Los Gatos and Bella Vista neighborhood groups ("Citizens of Alberto
Way") and we have prepared one response to address their combi ned comments .
All of the prior comments raised comments regarding the project or associated environmental
impacts and these issues were addressed in the EIR . Based on our review of the comment
letters, none of the comment letters raise any new issues or new environmental impacts . No
significant new information has been raised in the comment letters submitted at and following
the August lOth Plann ing Commission meeting, warranting further review under section
21092 .1 of the Public Resources Code or section 15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Responses to General Comments
1. The Project would result in traffic impacts that will add to the deteriorating traffic
conditions in los Gatos.
Several commenters assert that the provision of more parking spaces on the project site
indicates that the project will generate more traffic. Two commenters state that 393 parking
spaces will result in another 393 new vehicle trips. Some commenters suggest the project
would cause a 325-700 increase in new vehicles . Several commenters equate more parking
spaces with a corresponding increase in traffic. Other commenters indicate that the EIR
generally underestimated the amount of traffic because the trip generation does not correlate
to the parking spaces.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
The commenters previously submitted the same comments on the Draft EIR and at the August
lOth Planning Commission meeting and ra ised questions regarding the validity of the trip
generation calculation methodology. Our August 19th letter explained that the Draft EIR and
Traffic Impact Analysis evaluated Project trip generation estimates which were calculated based
on standard Institute of Transportation Eng i neers (ITE) trip generat ion rates and not based on
BN 21528175v2 2
Applicant's Supplemental Responses to Written Comments Dated August 24, 2016
the number of parking spaces. The ITE Trip Generation Manual contains trip rates calculated
from survey data of more than 200 office building sites. These ITErates are widely accepted as
the main and most reliable data source by traffic engineering professionals . ITE trip rates are
used in almost all traffic impact studies for land use development projects in the Bay Area. The
EIR concluded that the increased Project-generated traffic would cause a less -than-significant
impact based on the standard methodology for calculating trip generation and estimating
traffic impacts .
One commenter suggests that there are 300 parking spaces under existing conditions and ONLY
10% of the spaces were occupied . That means that if the spaces were fully occupied, 270 cars
would occur under existing conditions and the Project will add additional 390 cars.
The commenters conflate the number of parking spaces with the number of trips generated by
the Project. The Project would generate an increase of 167 cars in peak hour based on
standard ITE trip generation rates . This increase is 25% less than the 270 cars the commenters
claim would be generated . Even if the Project would generate 390 cars as the neighbors claim,
the total project trip generation is 42% less than the worst case estimate using standard ITE trip
generation rates . Moreover, 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 based on the Town's standard traffic impact analysis guidelines . Moreover, the
standard ITErates account for typical office uses and associated trip generation and account for
variations in employment levels across various types of office buildings.
One commenter also asserts that the trip generation estimates reported in the EIR did not
account for trip reduction efforts through TOM. The trip generation rates contained in the ITE
Trip Generation Manual however, were calculated from "single use developments where
virtually all access is by private automobile." The applicant proposes to implement TOM
measures to reduce vehicle trips by providing van pool and carpool parking spaces, 99 bicycle
spaces, providing showers and lockers for employees who bike and walk to work, and to
subsidize transit passes. Although there is no transit service on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road in
front of the site and the Project is not directly connected to an existing bike facility within the
immediate project vicinity, the effect of these TOM measures could reduce the Project trip
generation and result in less impact on the environment. Therefore, since the traffic study does
not include any potential trip reduction from the TOM program , the EIR traffic impact analysis
used a conservative approach in estimating project.
Commenters also question morning peak hour trip generation. In response, 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.
BN 2 !52817 5 v2 3
Applicant's Supplemental Responses to Written Comments Dated August 24, 2016
The 401 to 409 Alberto Way Final Transportation Impact Analysis was prepared by Hexagon
Transportation Consultants in 2016 (Traffic Impact Analysis). As stated on page 3-141, the
Town's transportation consultant peer reviewed the Transportation Impact Analysis and the
report was found to be consistent with VTA' and the Town's the study requirements.
The Traffic Impact Analysis and 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 139 cars
(see pages 3-163 through 3-175 of the EIR). The traffic impact would be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level as stated on page 3-175 of the EIR . The assumption that the project
would generate an additional 390 cars is inconsistent with the projected increase calculated
according to standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 9th Edition
trip generation rates as stated and analyzed in the traffic report and peer reviewed and
accepted by the Town's transportation consultant.
2. Impacts due to short distance between Alberto Way and Los Gatos Boulevard and
Hwy9
Some commenters suggest that the traffic analysis needs to consider the short distance
between one point of ingress/egress at Alberto Way and the freeway on-ramp immediately
past the Alberto Way intersection.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
The commenter did not identify a specific traffic problem on the segment of westbound Los
Gatos-Saratoga Road and the Highway 17 northbound on-ramp, immediately west of Alberto
Way. The traffic analysis evaluated the traffic conditions at both intersections of Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road with Alberto Way and with Los Gatos Boulevard, as well as an analysis of the
traffic operations of the westbound to northbound Highway 17 on-ramp immediately west of
Alberto Way and concluded that the project would not cause a significant impact.
3. Traffic Analysis errors compromise EIR conclusions .
Several commenters raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the traffic analysis.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
According to one commenter "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 commenter
asserts that the existing Hwy 17 exiting traffic is not counted by the EIR as ever having arrived at
Alberto Way.
One commenter suggests rush period peak hour arrivals were incorrectly reduced . Peak-hour
traffic generation however, is based on empirical trip generation data from the ITE Trip
Generation Manual and reflects the total number of vehicles generated by the Project during
the one-hour time period. Consistent with VTA's and the Town's requirements to study traffic
BN2 1528 175v2 4
Applicant's Supplemental Responses to Written Comments Dated August 24,2016
impacts, the analysis was conducted for the busiest one hour during the morning and afternoon
peak periods of travel. Thus, the rush period arrivals were not incorrectly reduced .
A commenter suggests that the traffic data used from 2013 VTA and Caltrans is stale and traffic
volumes have increased since the time the traffic data was collected . Per CMP technical
guidelines, a freeway segment level of service analysis was conducted using data from the most
recent, 2014 Annual Monitoring and Conformance Report. The 2013 traffic counts on the
freeway ramps were provided by Caltrans represent the most recent data available.
One commenter asserts that additional traffic will impact fire station facilities. The Santa Clara
County Fire District has reviewed the Project and has confirmed that the Project meets Fire
District safety requirements.
The commenter also states that the EIR ignores rush hour spill back onto Highway 9 . In
response to the comment, vehicle queuing at intersections are "operational issues" and are not
considered environmental impacts according to CEQA. The traffic analysis acknowledges that
there are queuing issues at intersections along Highway 9 . However, the traffic analysis
demonstrates that the Project would not cause a significant impact at the intersections with
Highway 9.
Commenters suggest that significant traffic impacts would occur on Alberto Way. The traffic
analysis however, does not identify any significant impacts on Alberto Way based on adopted
thresholds of significance .
Commenters also suggest the Project would cause significant traffic impacts on Los Gatos Blvd .
and Los Gatos Saratoga Road. Again , based on standard traffic analysis methodology, the traffic
analysis does not identify any significant impacts on los Gatos Blvd . and Los Gatos Saratoga
Road.
Commenters indicated that underreported trips would impact fire and EMS response and
further block Hwy 17 ramps. In respon se, the traffic analysis does not underreport trips and
the Santa Clara County Fire District has reviewed the project and ha s confirmed that the project
meets Fire District safety requirements.
Commenters suggest there is no construction traffic plan to review or to address closed
sidewalks during construction. A detailed construction traffic plan wil l be prepared by the
Applicant in coordination with the Town 's staff in accordance with the conditions of approval
and the construction traffic plan will address sidewalk accessibility during construction .
$615,800 fee is much lower than Caltran s projected fee. The t r affi c impact fee, however, is
established by the Town and not Caltrans and the estimated fee s are consistent with the
Town's requirements.
BN 2 1528175v2 5
Applicant's Supplemental Responses to Written Comments Dated August 24, 2016
One commenter indicates that Table 20 does not include LOS at Hwy 9117 and therefore
impacts are not mitigated; failure to include larkiHwy 17 intersection and that the project
would have a significant impacts on freeways . We note that Table 20 presents the intersection
Level of Service for the Project. Traffic analysis of the Highway 17 freeway segments and the
Highway 9 interchange ramps are presented in Tables 2 and 10 of the TIA, respectively. The
ramp and freeway analysis shows that the project would not cause a significant impact on these
facilities .
All traffic volumes relevant to the project traffic analysis are included in the traffic report.
Copies of the traffic count sheets are included in the Appendix of the traffic study.
The commenter questioned why some of the ramps were not counted and analyzed in the
traffic study. Ea stbound to southbound and ea stbound to northbound traffic volumes at the
Highway 9 I Highway 17 interchange were purposely not counted or analyzed . These ramps
would not carry any project traffic since they would not provide access to the project site nor
would they serve project traffic leaving the project site. The proj ect would add zero cars to
these ramps and therefore, these ramps were not included in the traffic analysis as confirmed
by the Town Traffic Engineer.
The commenter stated that 100% of the Highway 17 veh icles ex iting to eastbound Highway 9
are omitted f rom the vehicles arriving at Alberto Way. In contrast to the commenters'
statement, the eastbound traffic counts on los Gatos I Saratoga Road approaching Alberto Way
doe s include traffic from both northbound to eastbound and southbound to eastbound off
ramps as well as traffic from ea stbound los Gatos I Saratoga Road. The example computation
of the 2,369 arriving vehicles at Alberto Way pres ented in the comment letter is incorre ct. The
commenter assu mes that the 887 cars arriving at Alberto Way all come from eastbound
Highway 9 . The commenter adds to these volume s traffic counts from t he ramps that were
provided by Caltrans, thereby double counting the ramp traffic. Hexagon reviewed the traffic
count data of 1,103 vehicles on the southbound to ea stbound off ramp during the AM peak
hour reported by Caltran s and determined this data is inaccurate ba sed on actual counts.
He xagon conducted their own count at this location and found that the AM peak hour traffic at
this ramp i s in the range of 300 vehicles during the morning peak hour, which is considerably
le ss tha n the 1,103 vehicle count provided by Caltran s.
The 887 ea stbound vehicles on Highway 9 entering the Alberto Way were obtained from peak-
hour intersection turning movement counts and include traffic from both Los Gatos -Saratoga
Road and from the freeway off ramps. The count of 887 ea stbound vehicles is comparable with
the traffic count that was conducted on Highway 9 near Bella Vista Avenue . Traffic counts at
thi s location show approximately 920 vehicles traveling eastbound between Alberto Way and
los Gatos Boulevard, which is similar to the 887 cars counted at the intersection. The 887
vehicle s on eastbound Lo s Gatos -Saratoga Road are also comparable with the 851 eastbound
vehicle s arriving the intersection with Los Gatos Boulevard during the morning peak-hour.
Trip generation sensitivity an alysis comments are addressed in co njunction with the trip
generation d is cu ssion above.
BN 2 1528 175v2 6
Applicant's Supplemental Responses to Written Comments Dated August 24, 2016
One commenter indicated that there was insufficient R/W to accommodate restriping and bike
box required by Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2 . The restriping on Alberto way can be
accommodated within the existing 36-foot right-of-way by providing a 10-foot southbound
right turn lane, a 10-foot southbound through/left turn lane and a 16-foot northbound travel
lane. The Town's staff is in agreement with this restriping configuration and that is reflected in
the EIR .
Additionally, a concern was raised regarding insufficient access to accommodate large trucks,
FEDEX delivery trucks and emergency vehicles . All driveway and drive-aisle widths are at least
24 feet wide, and comply with the minimum requirements established in the Town of Los Gatos
Code of Ordinances Section 29.10.15. Thus, the driveways are adequate for garbage trucks and
emergency vehicle access and circulation .
A commenter also suggested that additional mitigation measures T-4 through T-6-should be
added regarding widening Hwy 9 along the length of project and other freeway improvements.
Contrary to the commenter's assertions, there is no nexus for widening Highway 9 along the
length of the project since the Project does not cause a significant traffic impact at the Highway
9 interchange or at the intersection of Alberto Way.
The commenter also indicates that the omission of the Hwy-17 Intersections of Hwy-9 & Lark
Ave from the Intersections at which traffic was studied that omit the numbers indicates that
the Town needs to verify the Traffic Study i n its entirety because the Applicant may have
improperly reported the present and as-proposed Rush Period traffic caused by the proposed
development. However, Highway 9 and Lark Avenue was not included in the traffic impact
study because the Project would contribute an insignificant amount of traffic to this
interchange.
A commenter also questioned the Traffic Study data that reduced Rush Period vehicle arrivals
at Alberto Way and Hwy-9 both presently and as generated by the Propose d Development.
Hexagon conducted their analysis in a manner consistent with the study requirements set forth
by the VTA and the Town of Los Gatos, the project trip generation and therefore the number of
arrivals during the peak hour is based on ITE Trip Generation rates as discussed above.
A commenter suggests that the traffic analysis incorrectly reported the number of busy period
trips into and out of Alberto Way generated by the Propo se d Development. Consistent with
the study requirements set forth by the VTA and the Town of Los Gatos, the project trip
generation and therefore the number of arrivals during the peak hour is based on ITE Trip
Generation rates
The commenter claims there is a defect in the ass umptions regarding the 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 . Consistent with the study
requirements set forth by the VTA and the Town of Los Gatos, the project trip generation and
therefore the number of arrivals during the peak hour is based on ITE Trip Generation rates as
BN 21528175v2 7
Applicant's Supplemental Responses to Written Comments Dated August 24, 2016
discussed above. This also applies to claims regarding the employee trip generation
assumptions .
Substitution of partial and stale Hwy-17 traffic data in the place of collecting traffic 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). The commenter suggests traffic magnitude has risen significantly
since its collection by VTA or Caltrans. In contrast to the commenter's assertions that the traffic
volumes have increased since the time the traffic data was collected by Caltrans and VTA, per
CMP technical requirements, a freeway segment level of service analysis was conducted using
data from the most recent, 2014 Annual Monitoring and Conformance Report. The 2013 traffic
counts on the freeway ramps were provided by Caltrans represent the most recent data
available.
4 . Traffic Analysis fails to address buildout of the general plan or Caltrans plan for
regional transportation facilities.
Comments from Caltrans forwarded by Citizens letter restate comments that Caltrans
submitted on Draft EIR . 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 improvements."
APPLICANT RESPONSE
The General Plan 2020 traffic analysis includes an additional1,600 housing units and 2,660 jobs
beyond year 2008 development levels spread out over numerous sites throughout the Town .
As required by VTA's and the Town's study requirements for individual development projects,
the Alberto Way TIA does include traffic from future developments in the vicinity of the project
that have already been approved as well as additional (cumulative) traffic from pending
developments that have been proposed but have not been approved . Additional traffic volumes
generated by these future developments, which were provided by the Los Gatos staff, are listed
in the traffic study and the impact analysis of this additional traffic on the transportation
system is included in Chapters 4 and 5 of the TIA . Consequently, the EIR evaluated the Project's
contribution to cumulative impacts to regional traffic conditions.
S. Project is too dense and too massive and is 3 times denser than existing buildings.
Many commenters raised concerns that the Project is three times denser than the existing
office buildings and will result in ass ociated traffic impacts. This will lead to more development
at the Alberto Oaks complex .
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Comments regarding concerns about the project density were previously submitted during the
Draft EIR comment period and at the August lOth Planning Commission meeting. Our August
BN 2 1528 175v2 8
Applicant's Supplemental Responses to Written Comments Dated August 24, 2016
19th letter and Project Justification Letter addressed project intensity and massing and
documented the basis for the project to be found consistent w ith the General Plan and
development regulations . There is no applicable floor area ratio for the existing land use
designation and zoning development regulations . The existing buildings consist of 31,000
square feet and the new buildings would result in an increase in square footage of 61,800
square feet on the project site with total site cove rage of 49.6 percent of the site. The site
coverage is consistent with the Office Professional General Plan land use and zoning de sign ation
for the site which allows up to 50 percent site coverage as discussed on page 3-8 of the EIR . The
proposed Project would be comparable to the existing 2-story office complex in the
surrounding area which includes office, restaurant, medical, hotel and residential uses as
discussed in Chapter 3-13.
As we indicated in our August 19th letter, the project buildings meet al l 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
authority to approve the height of the peak of the entry elements in accordance with the Town
Code (Section 29.10.090). Further the Town evaluates each project on its own merits and for
consistency with Town plans, policies and development standards. There is no evidence that
approval of the Alberto Way Project would make redevelopment of the Alberto Oaks Project
any likelier in the future.
6. Project would impact travel routes to downtown .
There are multiple routes to the downtown which would be impacted by the Project.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
The TIA includes an analysis of traffic impacts at intersections, freeway ramps and freeway
segments in the vicinity of the project. The project would add only a small amount of traffic
onto Highway 9, which is the main travel route to downtown . The project would not create a
significant impact at the intersections that were studied along this route (Highway 9 I Alberto
Way, Highway 9/University Avenue and Highway 9/North Santa Cruz Avenue). The project
would add a maximum of 36 vehicles during the AM peak hour in eastbound direction and 29
vehicles during the PM peak-hour in westbound direction onto Highway 9, west of the Highway
17 interchange. The project would add traffic in the non-peak direction of travel and would
account for approximately 1% of the peak-hour traffic on the aforementioned segment of
Highway 9. Traffic volumes due to the project on University Avenue and North Santa Cruz
Avenue would only increase by les s than a handful cars during the AM and PM peak hours.
7. Project would i ncrease traffic at intersection of Alberto and Los Gatos -Saratoga Road .
Commenters claimed that the EIR improperly concluded Project traffic were less than
sig nificant. Mitigation measures a re inadequate to m itigate project impacts.
BN 2 1528 175v2 9
Applicant's Supplemental Responses to Written Comments Dated August 24, 201 6
APPLICANT RESPONSE
The traffic study was conducted for the purpose of ide-ntifying the potential traffic impacts
related to the proposed development. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in
accordance with the standards set forth by the Town of Los Gatos and the Santa Clara County
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The scope of work
for the traffic analysis was approved by the Town 's traffic engineer and the analysis was
performed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. The traffic study was reviewed by the Town's
Engineer ing department as well as by the Town's independent Traffic Consultant. The traffic
study was found to be consistent with VTA 's and the Town's standards and requirements for
traffic impact studies. The results of the traffic analysis show that the project would not cause a
significant impact at any of the study intersections, including the intersection of Alberto Way
and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road .
8. The Project will foreclose the possibility of renovation or replacing the Hwy-17 & Hwy-
9 Intersection.
Commenters claimed that the Project will prevent the renovation or replacement of the Hwy-
17 and Hwy-9 intersection .
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Refer to Section 3.11 of the EIR for an analysis for the Project impacts to regional transportation
facilities . There are no plans to renovate or replace the Highway 9 I Highway 17 Interchange.
9. Concern about const r uction impacts, noise, air quality, light intrusion, and health
effects due to creep of business-related uses into neighborhood.
Many commenters expressed concern about the Project's impacts due to temporary
construction activities, noise, air quality, light intrusion and health effects. One commenter
raised the concern that the balcony would contribute to light intrusion and privacy impacts.
One commenter raised concerns that 270 round trips per day would result in gasoline spills, CO,
NOx , and C02 emissions which would contribute to greater health effects . Another commenter
questioned the number of dump trucks generated by the Project during construction .
APPLICANT RESPONSE
As summarized in our August lOth letter, these impacts were evaluated in the Draft EIR, the
documents supporting this application, along with the Town's independent analysis, and the
Staff Report. All of these analyses demonstrate that the 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, idling impacts,
and impacts to sensitive populations is included in Section 3. 2 of the EIR beginning on page 3-
36. The air quality analysis was based on traffic projections for ex isting plus project traffic
cond itions and factors in emission levels based on standard idling times associated with
BN 21528175v2 10
Applicant's Su pplemental Responses to Written Comments Dated August 24,2016
projected traffic. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts to .a leve l
cons idered less than significant on pages 3-35 (Mitigation Mea sure AQ-1) through 3-37
(Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-3), respectively. Based 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 increase in 134
project related trips during the AM peak hour and 138 trips during the PM peak hour.
As stated in our August 19th letter and described by Town Staff at the Planning Commission
meeti ng, a Town-required Construction Management Plan will be implemented during all
demolition, excavation, and construction phases. Page 2-8 of the Draft EIR indicated that the
Project would require the export of 69,350 cubic yards of soil , and construction activiti es would
occur over a 14 month period, of which 3 months would consist of the demolition, grading, and
shoring activities .
The Draft EIR evaluated noise impacts in Chapter 3.9. Page 3-128 of the Draft EIR addressed
noise levels associated with project-generated traffic and the associated impacts on residential
land uses located along Alberto Way . The Draft EIR noise impact analysis concluded that traffic
noise levels would be below the 55 dBA Ldn under existi ng plus project conditions and would
not result in a significant noise impact. The Draft EIR also evaluated noise increases due to
project operations including the rooftop mechanical equipment and concluded on pages 3-128
and 3-129 that all project noise impacts would be less-than-significant.
Section 3 .1 of the Draft EIR addresses potential impacts to aesthetics, visual resources and the
intrusion of light and glare. The Draft EIR addresses all forms of structural lighting and as
described in detail on pages 3-13 through 3-14, the proposed project would have minimal visual
impacts to the night sky and surrounding areas as required by Policy CD-3 .2 (See also EIR, page
2-23).
The commenters are primarily concerned with i nterior lighting and blocking sunlight on the
north side of the project site facing the Las Casitas multifamily residential development. The
Draft EIR found there would be no significant lighting on this side of the project site and an
existing narrow planting as well as new plants would reduce light spill (See EIR pg. 3-13). The
other multi-family residential development, Pueblo de Los Gatos, is more than 85 feet from the
project site and exi sting trees will screen views and block light from the project site .
Additionally, as noted on page 3-14, the Project would be required to demonstrate compliance
with Town Code Section 29 .10.09035, which prohibits the generation of direct or reflected l ight
onto any area outside of the project boundaries . Compliance w ith the Town Code would be
required as a condition of project approval prior to the issuance of building permits for the
proposed Project. As noted on page 3-14, overall, conditions would improve over the project
site's existing conditions with respect to light or glare because the current parking lot would
become an underground parking garage, thus reducing significant ground visitor lighting.
Therefore, on-site lighting and glare impacts would be less than significant.
BN 2 1528 175v2 11
Applicant's Supplemental Responses to Written Comments Dated August 24, 2016
As identified in the Final EIR, a Shadow Study was conducted to analyze the impacts of shade
and shadows on the surrounding property owners . As illustrated on Sheet A3.32, no impacts
occur.
Regarding the proposed second floor balconies, their use and hours of use, please note that as
a commercial office building, these balconies will only be used sporadically during business
hours (Monday through Friday, 8:00a.m . to 5:00p.m.). They are far too small to be utilized for
large functions of people. On other, similar projects we have designed and built, we find the
balconies are good selling point when marketing the buildings to potential tenants; however, in
practice, they end up being used very rarely. Furthermore, and as mentioned, the balconies
will not be occupied during non-business hours or on weekends. If necessary, balcony lighting
can be set on timers such that it shuts off during non-business hours and on weekends . Lastly,
please note that balconies are heavily screened at all property lines by both existing and/or
new tall screen trees, making them most ly non-visible when viewed from adjacent properties.
Balcony lighting would be in compliance with Town Code Section 29.10 .09035. Balcony lighting
will also be designed to meet CaiGreen and LEED requirements, such that no balcony lighting
spills over any property line onto adjacent properties. Please note that balconies will not be
occupied during non-business hours or on weekends. If necessary, balcony lighting can be set
on timers such that it shuts off during non-business hours and on weekends. Lastly, please note
that balconies are heavily screened at all property lines by both existing and/or new tall screen
trees, making them mostly non-visible when viewed from adjacent properties.
The outdoor areas include a patio with seating, a fire pit, media for outdoor entertainment and
meetings, and a communal dining table. These no ise sensitive areas are proposed a minimum
of 100 feet from the center of Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and 70 feet from center of Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road onramp to SR-17 . Exterior noise levels are anticipated to be 70 dBA Leq or less (3-
124).
Idling of both passenger and construction vehicles can lead to negative health effects and air
quality. The proposed project is required to minimize simultaneous operation of multiple
construction equipment units and minimize idling time of construction vehicles (Policy Env-
12.9, page 3-29).
As stated on page 3-21 of the Draft EIR, a study in Los Angeles showed pollutant levels had
dropped to near background levels within 300 feet of the nea rest f reeway lanes. A separation
of 500 feet between high volume freeways and sensitive receptors is recommended . However,
although Highway 9 is officially designated a "State Route," it is not a high volume freeway, and
is considered a 4-lane arterial through Los Gatos. The closest residential developments to idling
cars on Highway 9 are more than 350 feet from the roadway. Further, as stated on pages 3-36
and 3-37 with the incorporation of mitigat ion measures, the proposed project i s consistent with
the 2010 Clean Air Plan and would reduce impacts from air pollutant emissions to a level less
than significant. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 as well as the mitigation measures
presented in Section 3 .11, Transportation and Traffic are control measures acceptable to the Air
BN 2 1528 175v2 12
Applicant's Supplemental Responses to Written Comments Dated August 24, 2016
District to achieve compliance with the 2010 Clean Air Plan. Thus, the mitigation measures are
both adequate and in line with BAAQMD's standard control measure requirements identified in
the 2010 Clean Air Plan.
10. Project will cause a reduction in property values.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
By locating jobs near housing in Los Gatos, employees would have an opportunity for shorter
commutes to work rather than a long commute from Los Gatos to Mountain View or Sunnyvale.
As for degradation of property values, the applicant has never experienced this phenomenon in
the neighborhoods in which they have built office or residential developments . The
commenter did not provide any information to substantiate the commenter's opinion.
11. Project impacts are inconsistent with los Gatos vision and commenters disagree that
project would not have aesthetic impacts.
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.
The Town of Los Gatos' General Plan has multiple goals and policies related to aesthetics and
visual resources, refer to Draft EIR page 3-5 to 3-7 for a complete list. The proposed project
addresses each of these policies as identified in Section 2.4 and 3.1 of the EIR .
In terms of impacts on scenic vistas, the EIR quite clearly states that the new development
would result in height increases and partial view obstructions in new areas of the project site
based on current versus proposed building configurations. The obstructions however, are not
considered significant obstructions based on the standards of significance identified on page 3-
8 of the EIR, as well as the General Plan policies and guidelines preceding these thresholds.
Further, the Town of Los Gatos' General Plan policies LU-1.4, 1.8, 6.5, C.D-1.1, 1.2 require
projects to be designed in context with the neighborhood and surrounding area with respect to
the existing scale and character of surrounding structures, to blend with the character of the
area, to be designed in keeping with the small-town character of Los Gatos, and have a
proportion, type, density, and intensity consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood.
While the project design has always been consistent with the Los Gatos Zoning Code and
General Plan Land Use designation for height and mass, the project was redesigned to more
aggressively meet these General Plan policies. Refer to Final EIR comments page 2-51.
Lastly , as stated in the EIR, after a robust analysis of applicable General Plan goals, policies and
the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines, and utilizing the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
BN 2 1528175v2 13
Applicant's Supplemental Responses to Written Comments Dated Augus t 24, 2016
Standards of Significance, the project would re sult in less -than-significant impacts on scenic
resources or vistas. The existing office buildings and trees partially obstruct existing views of the
Santa Cruz Mountains and ridgel ines from adjacent properties (page 3-9). The proposed
project is consi stent with the Town 's General Plan and Zoning documents, and re spects the
small town feel through rigorous architectural design elements, fac;ade treatments, and
landscaping.
12. The Project would resu lt in impacts on eme rgency access and safety impacts to
children and seniors.
Comments raised concern that the Proj ect traffic would hinder emergency vehicle access and
create safety impacts. Concern that another stop sign is not located along Alberto Way. The
EIR states that the Project would not impact f ire and emergency services, but some
commenters are concerned the Project would impact fire and emergency response .
APPLICANT RESPONSE
The project includes safety and access improvements as described on page 3-177 through 3-179
of the Draft EIR which are de signed to facilitate safe pedestrian and bicycle movement between
the project site and 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 source of conflict w ith traffic, easing access
for traffic, and accommodating Emergency Vehicles on Alberto Way . As noted, emergency
responders have a second access opti on through the fire road through the Bella Vista area. The
Santa Clara County Fire District has rev iewed the project and has confirmed that the project
meets Fire District safety requirements .
13 . Project causes loss of on-street parking spaces .
The Project would remove about a dozen parking spaces used by residents and guests . The
Citizens Committee on Alberto Way letter comments that project will impact 8 parking spaces
and this causes an unavoidable impact to the residents and employees in the area because no
replacement parking.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
The Project includes removal of the on-street parking spaces at the Project driveway and at the
Best Western driveway along Alberto Way in order to provide 200 feet of additional area for
emergency vehicles and traffic to t ravel along Alberto Way and to improve the site distance for
veh i cles leaving the project's driveway. CEQA does not consider parking as an environmental
issue and therefore, a parking impact analysis is not required according to CEQA Guidelines.
Nonetheless, to offset the loss of existing parking spaces, the Project Applicant would work
with the Town to desig n off-site access and the Project in a manner to provide 5 parking spaces
in the garage to compensate for the loss of parking spaces along its frontage and also would
provide 3 additional spaces that would be removed along the eastside of Alberto Way because
of the restriping i n orde r to offset the loss of parking spaces .
BN 21528175v2 14
Applicant's Supplemental Responses to Written Comments Dated August 24, 2016
14. Loss of local small business (existing tenants).
Project would replace 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 .
APPLICANT RESPONSE
The EIR addresses the land use impacts of replacing the existing office buildings with the
proposed buildings. As for local businesses, the project is only half-leased today and most of
the businesses will be migrating to other sites in Los Gatos given their businesses serve Los
Gatos residents primarily. Vacant spaces available in the Town can and are expected to absorb
these companies in Los Gatos.
15. EIR says project would not impact scenic vista but the Project obstructs views of the
mountains and replaces mature landscaping with smaller trees and transforms
neighborhood to "concrete and glass jungle."
The General Plan states that new projects must respect all views of scenic vistas, 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, but the project
would have significant impacts to views .
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Courts grant cities great discretion to determine that a project is consistent with a General Plan
provided that determination is based on substantial evidence (see e.g., Naraghi Lakes Nbhd
Preservation Assn v. City of Modesto 2016 Cai.App. LEXIS 542 (July 2016)). Here, the EIR
addresses the Project's consistency with the General Plan Land Use and Community Design
policies related to aesthetics and visual resources on pages 3-5 through 3-7 and the Project's
conformance with the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines. Moreover, the EIR evaluated
impacts to views for the residents along Alberto Way and changes to the visual character with
the replacement of office buildings with new office buildings . Additionally, the Project
Applicant's Justification Letter documents how the Project complies with the Towns policies
and development regulations.
16. Employees would send their children to Los Gatos schools.
One commenter indicated that the Project assumes that employees in the new building will be
living in Los Gatos or have children in schools elsewhere. 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 require new facilities. The North 40 project
will add students to the schools in Los Gatos.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Per Los Gatos Union School District policy, the district is not required to admit students whose
parents work in Los Gatos but do not reside in Los Gatos (see e.g., AR 5111.1 Students). Los
BN 2 1528175v2 15
Applicant's Supplemental Responses to Written Comments Dated August 24, 2016
Gatos Union High School District policies require that a parent or guardian reside within the
district boundaries in order for a student to be allowed to attend local high school. One of
those exceptions is that a parent/guardian is a full-time employee of LGSUHSD, Los Gatos Union
Elementary School District, the Saratoga Union Elementary School District, or the Lorna Pr ieta
Joint Union School District on a space available basis. District policies do not generally
authorize students of parents/guardians who work in Los Gatos, but do not reside in Los Gatos,
to send their children to Los Gatos School District schools (see e .g., Los Gatos Union High School
District policies "Criteria for Residency", AR 5.111.1). Moreover, the North 40 project student
generation is not relevant to the question of whether the proposed project office buildings
would generate students attending Los Gatos schools.
17. The No project alternative is possible to develop .
The EIR concludes that the No Project Alternative would not meet the Project objectives but
some commenters believe it is just a matter of selecting the right tenant for the proposed Class
A office space. The Reduced Scale Alternative results in the same impacts as the Project.
AP PLICANT RESPONSE
Section 6.9 of the Draft EIR describes the reasons that the No Project Alternative is infeasible
and fails to meet the Proj ect Objectives. The Project Justification Letter provides further
explanation as to the Project objectives and the basis for the determination that the No Project
Alternative would not meet the basic project objectives. The issue is not simply a matter of
selecting the right tenant for the office as the Project Objectives summarized on pages 6-5 and
6-6 provide 8 other project objectives that the existing office building is unable to achieve given
the current state of the buildings as evidenced by the high vacancy rates.
BN 2l 528175v2 16
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank