Attachment 24Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subjed:
September 14, 2017
Jennifer Armer
Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Mai n Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Hello, Jennifer,
Kemp, Melanie <Melanie.Kemp@cbnorcal.com>
Thursday, September 14, 2017 11:56 AM
Jennifer Armer
RE : Thank you for meeting with us
Thank you for taking the time to meet with John Mettlestet and me this morning regarding the appeal of 405
Alberto Way to the Town Council. It's helpful to have a better understanding of the approval process.
We understand in August of 2016 the Planning staff approved the plans submitted by the developer as
meeting the Town's building requirements, but we were relieved to learn that staff is now supporting the
Planning Commission's recommendation to deny this project in their referral to the Town Counci l. We
understand the Town Council will take into consideration the recommendation of the Planning Commission,
the Planning staff recommendation, and the totality of materials in this file in making their decision to approve
or deny this appeal.
Thank you also for including our submitted materials for the Town Council packets. We look forward to seeing
you at next week's Town Council hearing.
Be st regards,
Melanie Kemp
rEfl MELANIE
~KEMP
... • 11. cf• , I ,. f 1' f ! j -~ I I'• ...
MELANIE KEMP
Broker Associate
Previews International Marketing Specialist
COLDWELL BANKER
C: 408.805.1555
41 Years' Experience I Coldwell Ba nker International President's ATTACHMENT 2 4
Jennifer Armer
From: Roman R <rrufanov@gmail.com >
Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:14 PM
Jennifer Armer
Sent:
To:
Subject: Proposed 401 Alberto way -object ions
Attachments: 2017 -02-28 -Las Casitas-desig nissuessummi rized.pdf
Jennifer and all,
Pl ease find in attachment (see PDF file) a list of violations against LG Commercial Design Guidelines.
• I am asking Town to reject the Appeal based on multiple v iolations of town's General Plan, Commercial Design
Guidelines and many unidentified and unmitigated Environmental Impacts.
o See page 2 and 7 for list of exact violations
• I protest the bias and promotion of outside developers' interests vs. the Town's Citizens.
o His claim that "project is supported by Town Council" seems premature given Town Council did not
happen yet.
• I also truly think that proposed CAT bus services is a diversion and distraction indented to hide real problems
with the project. Specifically:
o The proposed bus run (seating 30 people in 30 mins) represents less <1% of total Middle and High
School students
o It runs only in one direction which means that it is useless for 50% of other students
o It has no firm schedule hence it can not be relied on
Thanks, Roman Rufanov @435 Albero Way, Los Gatos
My new email address : RRufanov@GMAIL.COM
Roman Rufanov
Las Casitas Opposition Summary:
Re: proposed development at 401-409 Albero Way
Dear Planning Commission,
The developer has returned with new revised plans .
• These new plans do not follow the recommendations the Planning Commission expressed in Aug 24th
meeting.
• They also do not address the needs of the residents .
We are asking that the Planning Commission NOT to certify the EIR and REJECT this project.
Please see additional reasons and lists of violations with Town policies below.
Table of contents
1. The unaddressed issue is scale and bulk.
1 a. List of violations of LG Commercial Design Guidelines
2. Flawed EIR and direct financial impact to Las Casitas
2a. Direct cost to Las Casitas
2b. Too narrow view of the EIR
2c. Additional reasons why EIR is flawed :
3. Traffic impact
3a. VT A approved funding for Hwy9 & 17 interchange rebuild
3b. Existing traffic jams {without any additional traffic}
Evidence photos-Thursday, September 15th, 2016@ 8:15am
Evidence photos -Wednesday, September 7th, 2016 @ 8:01 :1 Oam
4. Conclusion
6. Appendices
5a . Appendix A: List of Attachments
5b . Appendix B : Conflicts with General Plan Policies
2
2
3
3
3
4
6
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
1
1. The unaddressed issue is scale and bulk.
• Developer reduced the area of the building from 92,000 sqft to 83,000 sqft, only 9.8%, while the Commission had
requested at least a 30% reduction
• The size is out of place and in direct violation of the ·LG Commercial Design Guidelines•
o Please see Mst of violations with page numbers and section numbers below.
• Proposed building violates privacy by looking directly into Las Casitas backyard and windows.
o See picture from LG Commercial Design Guidelines, page 18, which list exactly prohibited situation .
o This also violates Page 7 Section 1.3 PURPOSE: Protect property owner investments by discouraging
Inappropriate adjacent development.
1a . List of violations of LG Commercial Design Guidel ines
Reference: http://www.losgatosca.qoy/DocumentCenterMew/325
List of inconsistencies with page number and section number:
Page 7 Section 1.3 PURPOSE: Maintain a building scale that Is consistent with the small scale image.
Issue: Views of hills are obstructed for Las Casitas residents .
Page 7 Section 1.3 PURPOSE : Protect property owner investments by discouraging Inappropriate
adjacent development
Issue: Proposed building looks directly into Las Casitas residences per picture in the LG CD .
Issue: Views of hills are obstructed for Las Casitas residents.
Page 7Section1.4 COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS: Maintenance of the existing small town feel
Issue: Addition of traffic for 300+ cars is not consistent with this requirement.
Page 7 Section 1.4 COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS : Small scale buildings with a strong pedestrian orientation
Issue: Additional heavy traffic (300+ cars) will impede pedestrian and bicycle routes to schools.
Page 8 Section 1.4 COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS: Buildings over two stories are discouraged in areas covered
by these guidelines unless special circumstances warrant additional building height
Issue: No specific circumstances which prevent building 1 story office building were identified.
Excerpt from LG Commercial Design Guidelines
2.3.3 esped he privacy o f nei bori ng residen ts
a) A'\'nid wfodou.-,i; whi.di wnnld pmttidP. 'dl"!\\"!I into
i:esi.ckuci:U p~.intc yrud sp:acl!!s.
A\'Oid i.-. .. mdo~\.'.S lookmg into residemiat
private >·ed Sp.lees
2
2. Flawed El R and direct financial impact to Las Casitas
There are 3 common concerns for all 4 associations to which Las Casitas association fully subscribes.
They are all identified and spelled out in detail by an independent expert (see Geissler hydrology report in attachment).
• Current plan to have 2-story underground parking will run into water issues .
e Current mitigation plan is not sufficient
" Un-mitigated or avertooked issues : dewatering, diversion and liquefacfam.
2a. Direct cost to Las Casitas
As indicated by an independent expert (see Ge issler hydrology report in attachment) Las Casitas HOA should expect:
• Foundation/slab cracking and settling to Las Casita foundations due to proposed 2 story underground garage.
o The estimated settlement is 112 to 3/8 inches
• Geissler expects this will result in cracked foundations I slabs at Las Casitas.
• Geissler expects this will cause pipes to burst at Las Casitas .
Cracked foundations/slabs and/or burst pipes will cause u~timated and unmitigated financial inpact to Las Casltas .
We ask you to REJECT the EIR based on the findings in the Geissler hydrology report.
References to Geissler report :
• Page 3 quote: "the combined effect of .. (ii) subgrade soils subject to liquefaction •.. makes this site unsuitable for the
proposed underground (and underwater) garage"
• Page 3 quote: "Geissler holds the opinion that construction of the 2 story underground parking ... shall cause ..
foundation settlement and cracked slabs at nearby houses In . Las Casitas".
• Page 7 quote: "50 feet from excavation ... 3/8" of soil subsidence"
2b . Too narrow view of the EIR
The Developer took way too narrow and superficial approach to EIR. This is not the purpose of the EIR as explained below.
Specifically:
The EIR's conclusion that the Project will not result in hydrology, geology/soils/seismic, and health and safety impacts Is not
supported. Pursuant to the expert testimony of Dr. Peter Geissler, Geissler Engineering, the EIR is inadequate and
incomplete and the Project's impacts have not been fully divulged. CEQA achieves its purpose of long-term protection of the
environment by functioning as «an environmental full disclosure statute, and the EIR is the method . . . [of] disclosure ... "
Rural Landowners Association v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020. An EIR should not just generate paper,
but should act as "an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose Is to alert the public and its responsible officials to
environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return ." County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32
Cal.App.3d 795, 810 . The EIR provides analysis to a l ow decision makers to make intelligent judgments. (Guideline §15151 .
• ... the preparation of an EIR is the key to environmental protection under CEQA, ... • No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
(1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 82 ; §21151.) Here, the EIR failed to act as a full disclosure document and must be rejected as
inadequate.
We ask you to REJECT the EIR based on the findings in the Geissler hydrology report.
3
2c. Additional reasons why EIR is flawed:
1. Water table for EIR was measured during 5-year drought in Nov 2014.
2. Since Nov 2014 , the Santa Clara Water tests show that the underground water table has risen by 55 feet above
MSL: see Santa Clara Valley Plain Well Depth chart (beloW)
3 . Water runoffs through Bella Vista are so strong that sump pumps had to be installed during projed construdion in
several houses .
Reference:
Santa Clara Plain Well 07S01W25L001 {San Jose}
14il ............................................ . •••••••1'•' "'•••11.,.•1'" 11:••••••rr ••••••••• -i • ., ...... ,,. ....... ..,P
: ~:~~::: :~·:=: ~:::=j=:=::: :=::=: :=::= ::~~:=:1~~~:::::~ :~~:=:: ·::~:::~:':~::::::: :·
80 -i--·, .:A,_.,. ........ &~·-·-·-···-·· ··-··--· -~:-.-. ~ - -·-·
60 r-"·· ·----· ·-··-H•~ .... -H .. ..,<[. Hmm -HHH -
40 -······· ··-······ ··-····· ....•. ··-....... "!! ···-···· ······-·r········-·····-·· ········· ·.. .
2~ --~---~-mmm ••••m•• m•m• """"""""" ~=-· ==-i-:·:---•• =mm ••••-m ""'"" •••u•m "'"•U•:•
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~me ~
• m ~ • m -c • m c -~ • , , , , , , ' , , , , , ~ ,
• • •· • Groundwa.ter Elevation Odobe' 1, 2016
Page URL -http://www.valleywater.org/WaterTracker.aspx
Graph URL -
http:/fwww.vallevwater.org/uploaded!mages/Services/C!eanReliableWater/WaterSupplyPlanning/WaterTracker documents a
nd imaqes/1-Fina! Pocs and lmaqes/7.%2QAug 2013 SantaCJara.jpg
4
3. Traffic impact
There have been many points raised to the Planning Commission during the initial hearing. Specifically:
• Safety impact to all children walking or biking to or from the school
• Additional air pollution impacting quality of life and health
• Loss of street parking
• Additional congestion on Hwy9
The revised plans do not fully address these concerns.
Without rehashing previous arguments, Las Casitas HOA would like to bring two facts to your attention:
3a . VT A approved funding for Hwy9 & 17 interchange rebuild
In November 2016 election CA public voted for 11.2-cent sales tax measure to generate $6 billion to $6.5
billion in 2017-year dollars for infrastructure projects. Rebuild of Hwy9 & 17 interchange was added to the VTA approved list
to utilize these approved funds.
Going forward with proposed construction at 401-409 Alberto Way will make it impossible (or too costly to taxpayers) to
rebund the interchange
• We are asking to not certify EIR until after Hwy9 and Hwy 17 interchange is rebuilt.
• A new EIR is needed and a new traffic study is needed after interchange is rebuilt to address new impacts.
Please see VT A July Resolution 1n Appendix 5a on page 7.
3b . Existing traffic jams (without any additional traffic)
V\lhile developer's traffic study did not find any significant impact, we conclude otherwise.
Here are pictures of how traffic looks today without additional traffic.
• It looks terrible already
• It is clear that adding another 300+ cars will make the situation even worse
• We are asking you io reject the proposed construction based on the evidence presented
Evidence photos -Thursday, September 15th, 2016@ 8:15am
First set of four pictures:
We observed the AM rush hour multiple times. Eastbound Hwy-9 traffic takes several cycles and 6-8 minutes over 2-3 cycles
for vehicles to get through the light at Alberto Way.
• Please see lines of cars outlined by red lines.
o They are queued from the Hwy17 Los Gatos East off-ramp onto Hwy 9 all the way up to Los Gatos Blvd.
• This means the intersection is failing and the Level of Service (LOS) is an F today.
o Applicant's traffic study does not reveal this observation .
o This Major Environmental Impact is not recognized m the FEIR or addressed in any Mitigation.
Evidence photos -Wednesday, September 7th , 2016 @8:01:10am
Second set of four pictures: different day but situation is the same.
Eastbound traffic queued all the way along Hwy 9 from Hwy17 to Los Gatos Blvd.
5
6
4. Conclusion
We are asking you to NOT certify the EIR and REJECT this project due to:
• Multiple direct violations with LG Commercial Des ign Guidelines (listed in section 1 and 1 a)
• Unmitigated financial impact to Las Casitas due to 2-story deep excavation (section 2 and 2a)
• Traffic impact and additional congestion (section 3 and 3a)
5. Appendices
5a. Appendix A : List of Attachments
• Geissler hydrology report (March 2017)
a . Please see last attachment to this document
• VTA Resolution attachment B (July 2016)
a . httos://drive.google.com/open?id=OB8UvZbAzgZQUZ1 FoM1BqTVZUX1 lzNThPNVNfZOhndXF4b3o4
• Santa Clara Test Well data (Jan 2017)
a . Page URL -http://www.valleywater.org/WaterTracker.aspx
b. Graph URL
htto://www.valleywater.om/uploadedlmages/Seryjces/CleanRe!jableWater/WaterSypplyPlanning/WaterTrack
er documents and imaqes/1-Final Docs and lmagesa. %20Auq 2013 SantaClara.jpg
5b. Appendix B: Conflicts with General Plan Policies
Located at https:/.lwww.losgatosca.gov/27 /General-Plan
LU-1.2: "Ensure that new development preserves and promotes existing commercial centers consistent with the
maintenance of a small-scale, small-town atmosphere and image.•
LU-1 .8 : "Commercial development of any type (office retail, research and development, etc.) shall be designed in keeping
with the small-town character of Los Gatos.•
LU-6 3: "Protect existing residential areas from adjacent non-resldentlal uses by assuring that buffers are developed and
maintained.·
LU-9.1: MEnsure that new development preserves and promotes existing commercial centers consistent with the
maintenance of a small-scale, small-town atmosphere and image.•
LU-9 6 · "Encourage development that maintains and expands resident-oriented service and/or creates employment
opportunities for local residents consistent with overall land use policies of the Town."
LU-9.9: "Buffers shall be required as conditions of approval for non-residential projects that are adjacent to residential
areas and may consist of landscaping, sound barriers, building setbacks, or open space."
CD-1 .1: "Building elements shall be in proportion with those traditionally in the neighborhood.•
CD-1 .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 the area."
7
TRA-9.5. ·Alternative transportation means shall be required whenever the traffic generated by a development would
result in a significant increase in air pollution, traffic congestion, or noise."
8