Attachment 26Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
La Canada Investments, LLC
1 -17.5 N Santa Cruz Ave
Los Gatos, CA 95030
9/18/2017
Jim Foley <info@lacanadainvestments.com >
Monday, September 18, 2017 12:05 PM
voice heard@401albertoway.co m
Please approve 405 Alberto W ay
Mayor Marica Sayoc & Town Council Members
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re : 405 Alberto Way
Madam Mayor and Honorable Town Council,
Our family has been a commercial property owner in Los Gatos since the 1920s. We lived through many
different economic life-cycles in Lo s Gatos, and at thi s time we are in need of an influx of business in Town
in order to continue to be competitive with other neighboring municipalities and support our existing local
bu sinesses. Please accept this letter as an indication of our s upport for the proposed office development at
405 Alberto Way . We believe not only will it achieve the aforementioned goal, but as an added benefit
The Cat shuttle is something that will directly assist some of the struggling businesses in
the commercial core, some of whi c h are our tenants. We need to make Lo s Gatos relevant again a s a first
cla ss shopping and dining destination. We feel the 405 Alberto project i s a step towards that goal. Plea se
approve the project .
'
La
< aiioo.:i
I"' ::<amcnts
·--....
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hall , Dan <dphall@trane.com >
Monday, September 18, 2017 1:00 PM
voiceheard@40lalbertoway.com
Please approve 405 Alberto Way
I encourage you to approve the 405 Alb erto Way project. The existing building is 50 years old and an eye sore.
This is a great opportunity to modernize the area. The benefits far outweigh any negative. The building is
attractive and has an efficient LEED certified design. Looks great in Los Gatos. It will provide for local
bu s ines s and employment opportunities (and more tax revenue). With a reverse commute, the building will also
help with traffic on 17.
I strongly urge you to approve the project.
Best Regards ,
Dan Hall
408 832-0122
Jenn ifer Armer
From: Randi Chen [mail to:randi@losgatoschamber.com ]
Sent : Monday , September 18, 2017 12:29 PM
To: Town Manager
Subj ect: Your input on Alberto Way project
Hi Downtown Businesses -
The Alberto Way project will be going before Tow n Council tomorrow night, Sept. 19. We would like to be the voice of the
businesses , so we are eager to hear your opinion . Please take the survey below. It is very short.
htt ps ://www.su rveymo nkey.com /r/SJ PN W2C
If you need more information on the proje ct, you can view the plans at: http ://www.losgatosca.gov/2216/Pending -
Pl anning-Projec ts
Thank you for your input and prompt response.
Randi Chen
Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce
This 'email 1·.c:s sc,r~t 0"1 behalf of Los Gatos Ct1arnber of Commerce b y Grow'hZone. 24400 Smiley RD Ste. 4. hlis s;1a . MN 56468.To unsu l>si:.r ib(; cl ic k
he re . !f you have quesnons or comm<:,1ts concerning this email or Gro,vtnZcne se1vice s in general, pleil se con ta ct us by email at
__illji_ ·0 .• ".!..!. .. '.l.:_~,. /' ~fn.
Date
Los Gatos Meats & Smoke House
575 University Ave.
Los Gatos, Ca. 95032
Mayor Mari co Sayoc & Counci l Members
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: 405 Alberto Way
• Los Gatos Meats & Smoke House would like t o voice our s upport for a larger and more modem office
building at 405 A lb erto Way. We like to see Los Gatos stay beautiful , run down o ld office building with
weeds everywhere is not what Los Gatos represents. We do understand the need to be cautious in
construction and growth in this small tow n. We also und erstand and respect the negative views on this
project as whenever something new h appens , lives and family are effected. W e strongly b e li eve thi s
company has done many things and li stened to the neighbors and to create a mutual deve lopment that will
benefit the neighbors, school , and businesses in Los Gatos. We are not only business owners but residents
of Los Gat os.
• We have meet with the owner s of the proposed developme nt a nd believe they are hon est a nd will do
whatever they can to follow through on promis es to bring more bus iness to Los Gatos. As a Los Gatos
bu siness own er, I can s p eak from first-hand experience how important it is that we attract as many
customers as possible. Not only w ill thi s new CLASS A office building bring hundreds of new employees
to Los Gatos, it does so wit hout clogging Los Gatos streets during the day v ia their p ro p osed shutt le
service.
• This is the right commercial rea l estate development at t he right time. Your approval is essential to
improv ing the bu sin ess climate in downtown Los Gatos.
Thank you for your time,
Brian Chiala
Brian Chiala, Lo s Gatos Meats & Smoke House
Letters need to b e e mailed or fa xe d no later than Frid ay, 9/19 by llam to co uncil @losga tosca .gov or
408-399-5 786(fax )
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Scott Eschen <sco tt@seacoas tpartners .us>
Monday, Sep tember 18, 2017 4 :57 PM
voiceheard@401albertoway.com
Please Approve 405 Alberto Wa y Proposed Development
Dear Elected City Council Members of Los Gatos:
I live on Belmont Ave in downtown Los Gatos and am entrepreneur and small business owner. After much analysis and
research, I have decided to whole-hearted support the 405 Alberto Way project as it is currently proposed and I implore
you to do the same. Please remember that it is your job to listen to ALL residents unbiasedly and not let a small but
vocal group of "squeaky wheel NIBMYs" di ssua de you from a balanced and legally sound decision that meets the overall
stated plans and objectives of the entire town/city.
The proposed project definitely
• complies with all the publicly stated town objectives and plans,
• more that adequately meets all zoning requirements,
• replaces an eye-sore of a building with an attractive & sensitively designed modern yet traditional one,
• offers way more than the state-required traffic mitigat ion measures -including the CAT free shuttle service,
• will provide relief to a huge pent-up demand for true Class A office needs, and
• will provide lots of revenue to the town's general fund and thus even more public benefits
Please do not let th is turn into yet another legal battle like the North-40 project that the town will ultimately lose after
spending & wasting $100,000's of residents' taxpayer monies that could otherwise be directed to public benefits for
which you will receive much praise instead of frustrated criticism from residents.
Very truly yours,
Scott Eschen
Seacoast Partners LL C
408-482-7474 Office
866-202-3098 Fax
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Officials :
von Thaden, Gregg (SJC) <Gregg.vonThaden@colliers.com>
Monday, September 18, 2017 4:59 PM
voiceheard@401albertoway.com
Please approve 405 Alberto Way
I have been a commercial real estate broker in Silicon Valley for almost 30 years and would like to send you
this message in support of this new planned office project. There is a severe lack of quality office space in the
West Valley and in particular Los Gatos. This project conforms with general plan and zoning and will certainly
be a huge upgrade to what exists there now. I know several business owners who live in Los Gatos who would
like to keep their business close to home instead of having to go elsewhere to find nice new attractive office
space. This project would certainly be exciting for the whole community.
Thank you,
Gregg
Gregg von Thaden
Exec uti ve Vice Presiden t
CA License No. 01007475
Direct +1 408 282 3915 I Mobi le +1 408 981 5333
Main +1 408 282 3800 I Fax +1 408 292 8100
gregg.vonthaden@colliers.com I Add as Con tact
Colliers International
450 West San ta Cla ra Str eet I San Jose , CA 95113 I United Sta tes
www.colliers.com
-
Jennifer Armer
Fro m: Chris Cowan [mai lto:chris lcowan@yahoo.com ]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 3:55 PM
To: Council
S ubject: 405 Alberto Way & Development Policy
Honorab le Town Council ,
I DO NOT SUPPORT a significantly increased intensity of development at the Alberto Way site ... or
any other site in the Town of Los Gatos.
Los Gatos will be required to zone for additional affordable housing for every new job created in the
Town according to the "Regional Housing Needs Assessment" by the Association of Bay Area
Governments. Los Gatos is already built-out, and cannot support additional developments.
I DO NOT SUPPORT the infrastructure and unintended consequences associated with meeting
increased RHNA requirements from ABAG, including:
Large h igh-density hous ing developments.
Increased traffic congestion.
Increased enrollment at loca l schools , wh ich are already filled beyond capacity (with no plans or
space to build additional facilities).
Town staff and leadership have already BOTCHED previous high-profile projects (North40 , Albright),
to the benefit of large developers, and at the expense of local residents. I OPPOSE ANY additional
large high-density development.
In addition , I support the creation of an inquiry by the Town Council to review the North40 approval
process and highlight the steps that were taken to result in such a negative outcome .
C hri s Cowan
Los Gatos Resid e nt
PROVENCHER & FLAIT, LLP
823 Sonoma Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Phone: 707-284.2380 Fax: 707-284 .2387
Los Gatos Town Council
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
September 18, 2016
A ITORNEYS AT LAW
Douglas B. Provencher
Gail F. Flatt
OF COUNSEL
Rachel Mansfield-Howlett
Rhowlettlaw@gmail.com
RECE~VED
SEP 1 9 2017
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Via email and hand delivery
Re: 401-409 Alberto Way-Architecture and Site Application S-15-056,
Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009, and Environmental Impact
Report EIR-16-001. Property Owner: CWA Realty. Applicant/ Appellant:
LP Acquisitions, LLC. Considering an appeal of a Planning Commission
decision denying a request to demolish three existing office buildings and
construct a new, two-story office building with below grade and at g rade
parking on property zoned CH. APN 529-23-018.
Dear Mayor Sayoc and Council Members,
On behalf of the Los Gatos Commons, Pueblo de Los Gatos, Las Casitas, Bella
Vista and the Alberto Way Development Committee, collectively "Commons" hereafter,
thank you for the opportunity to comment on the applicant's appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision.
The Commons support the Planning Commission's decision to deny the
Project and urge the Council to uphold its decision. The Commons also urges the
Council to remand the matter back to the Planning Commission to hear testimony
and render an informed decision regarding the adequacy of the EIR, prior to its
certification. The Commission should also be allowed an opportunity to review
any new information, especially any information that would require the EIR to be
amended or revised.
The Planning Commission did not abuse its discretion when it postponed
certification of the EIR.
The developer asserts the Planning Commission's denial of the Project
while leaving the EIR certification to a later date "turns CEQA on its head." The
developer has it backwards. While it is not legal to approve a project without first
certifying the environmental review as complete, the reverse is not true, it is
perfectly appropriate to deny a project and leave the EIR certification for a later
date.
Page 1of5
The reason for this is simple, the Project may be further reconfigured and
resubmitted as an amended Project and changes to the Project may require the EIR
analyses to be reworked, therefore, the EIR may need to be revised prior to its
certification. This is perfectly appropriate and legal.
The Planning Commission utilized objective criteria in making findings that
supported the denial of the Project.
Consistent with the North 40 decision, in reviewing factual determinations
by an agency, where, as here, a fundamental or vested right is not involved, the
standard of review is whether substantial evidence supports the agency's findings.
A court reviews disputed facts in a light most favorable to the agency, giving it
every reasonable inference and resolving conflicts in favor of the agency.
As detailed in the recent letter sent by the Commons to the Town Council
regarding this matter, the Planning Commission cited to numerous objective
criteria to support its denial; the Commission need not cite to every General Plan
and Town Code provision where the Project is compliant, as the developer asserts.
The Planning Commission's duty, when denying a project, is to cite to the specific
provisions where the inconsistencies lie. Under this standard of review, the record
supports that the discretionary finding of the Planning Commission's decision is
based upon substantial evidence.
Alternatively, if the Council feels that the Planning Commission's findings
need to be amended to cite more specifically to objective substantial evidence, the
Council may deny the Appeal and remand the findings back to the Commission
for revision.
Regarding the developer's assertion that projects that are inconsistent with
area plans and policies may still be approved by an agency, while this may be true
in some instances, there is certainly no requirement that an agency approve a
discretionary project that fails to conform to area plans and policies. This only
makes logical sense; in order for the Town's plans and policies to have any weight
or efficacy, they must be able to be used, where appropriate, to deny a project
approval, otherwise, what would be the purpose of adopting land use goals and
provisions at all? The Planning Commission did not abuse its discretion when it
denied the Project.
Adequacy of EIR
Hydrology
In the event the Council decides to consider the certification of the EIR, the
Commons respectfully requests the Council review the in-depth expert written
and oral testimony submitted by Peter Geissler which provide the basis for
rejecting the analysis conducted in the EIR regarding hydrological impacts.
Page 2 of 5
The EIR failed to adequately account for the Project's hydrological impacts
or to propose appropriate mitigation. In light of this expert testimony, the
Commons requests the EIR be revised and recirculated for comment to include this
information about the Project's hydrological impacts prior to further consideration
of the Project.
As explained by the California Supreme Court in Mountain Lion Foundation
v. Fish & Game Commission (1997) 16Cal.4"'105, 124, "Under CEQA, a public
agency must ... consider measures that might mitigate a project's adverse
environmental impact and adopt them if feasible. (Pub. Res . Code §§ 21002,
21081.)" The Court reiterated "CEQA's substantive mandate that public agencies
refrain from approving projects for which there are feasible alternatives or
mitigation measures." (Id. at 134.) CEQA's substantive mandate was again
underscored by the California Supreme Court in Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of
Rancho Cordo v a (2007) 40 Cal.4"' 412; City of Marina v. Board of Tru stees of th e
California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4"' 341, and by the Court of Appeal in
County of San Diego v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District (2006) 141
Cal.App.4"' 86 and Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141
Cal.App.4"' 1336.
Alternative 1, Option 2 considers a project alternative without the
problematic below grade parking that could avoid this impact and the Commons
would support adoption of this alternative.
Aesthetics and Views Impacts
The photographic evidence of views impacts, submitted by the Los Gatos
Commons in its recent letter, provides substantial evidence showing significant
aesthetic impacts of the Project not adequately considered in the EIR. As you can
see by the photographic depictions, the proposed Project would completely
obscure public views, whereas the existing buildings only partially limit views,
contrary to the assertions in the EIR that claimed the existing buildings limit the
same views as the Project. As you are aware, the General Plan identifies the Santa
Cruz Mountains and surrounding ridgelines as scenic vistas. The General Plan
requires that all views of scenic vistas (Policy CD-16.1), including views from
adjacent private property (Policy CD-6.1 and CD-16.3) and roads be protected. The
EIR failed to identify the Project's impacts to these important views and also failed
to adequately review feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to the Project
that would significantly reduce these impacts. The EIR should be rejected as
inadequate and incomplete on this basis.
CEQA Guidelines state a visual resources impact is considered significant
if implementation of the proposed project would "have a substantial adve rse effect
on a scenic vista," or "substantially damage scenic resources," or "substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings."
(Pub. Res. Code§ 21151(a), Guidelines§ 15064.) Substantial evidence includes
Page 3 of 5
"facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion
supported by facts." (Pub. Res. Code§§ 21080(e)(l), 21082.2 (c).) First-hand lay
perceptions regarding non-technical impacts meet legislative definitions of
substantial evidence and testimony of area residents that are not qualified
environmental experts qualifies as substantial evidence when based on relevant
personal observations. (City of Carmel By-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors {1986) 183
Cal.App.3d 229, 246 n.8; Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporation v. County of El Dorado
(1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882; Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop
Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 173; Quail Botanical Gardens
Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4"' 1597, 1604-1605; Arviv
Enterprises v. South Valley Planning Commission (2000) 101Cal.App.4"'1333.) Here,
the photographic evidence of views impacts qualifies as substantial evidence.
Economic Feasibility of Alternatives
When considering smaller project alternatives, a developer's bare assertion
that a smaller project is infeasible does not meet the standards of infeasibility laid
out in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167:
"The fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not
sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is
evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to
render it impractical to proceed with the project." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board
of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1181, emphasis added; See also Kings
County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221Cal.App.3d692, 736; City of
Fremont v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (1995) 34 Cal.App.3d 1780.)
Unsurprisingly, many developers doggedly resist altering projects and
prefer to build their proposed project unaltered. This understandable penchant
does not supplant alternative review; otherwise, CEQA review would be
futile. (Burger v . County of Mendocino (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322 [absent an estimate
of income or expenditures supporting the conclusion that reduction of a motel
project or relocation of some units would make the project unprofitable, an
infeasibility finding based on economic factors could not be made.]; Citizens of
Goleta Valley v. County of Santa Barbara 197 Cal.App.3d 1167 [record including no
analysis of the comparative costs, profits, or economic benefits of scaled down
project alternative was insufficient to support finding of economic
infeasibility]; Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587
[project applicant's preference against an alternative does not render it infeasible];
(Save Round Valley v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437).) Here, the
developer has not submitted any data sufficient to show that purported additional
costs or decreased profits of a smaller project alternative would render it
impractical to proceed with the project.
I
I
Page 4 of 5
Attorney for Los Gatos Commons, Pueblo de Los Gatos, Las Casitas, and Bella Vista
Page 5 of 5
Jennifer Armer
From: Meena Mallipeddi [mailto:burninbrig ht@yahoo.com ]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 10:01 PM
To: Council
Subject: Please listen to your Planning Commission and Vote NO on Alberto Way Proposal tomorrow
Dear Mayor & Members of the Council,
We moved here in 2013, and in just the few short years since then , we have noticed a dramatic and detrimental increase
in traffic . Especially in the summer (and living off Englewood , the cut through traffic here has been horrendous, as
highlighted by many eloquently at the last council mtg) but throughout the year during peak commute times as well.
We already fear what the resurrected North 40 development will do to our exit out of town up by Lark. Now, if you reverse
the years of work and analysis your Planning Commission undertook to conclude that the Alberto Way development is an
extremely bad idea for all of us, I can already see how the daily commute to work/shop/live in Los Gatos will become
excruciating . I guarantee that I will not be crossing into downtown for anything if I have to deal with added traffic
delays/back ups/blocked boxes at that Alberto interchange , in addition to the backups regularly experienced on LG Blvd ,
and I'm sure I'm not the only one. In addition , cut through traffic at all times of year will become a constant problem, as
people seek alternate routes onto 17 to avoid the backup at the onramp Alberto Way will cause .
Similar to local business only getting hit worse after the Council closed the downtown 17 on ramp in the summer in the
name of helping them , please understand that anything this massive at Alberto Way is definitely going to hurt traffic flow
both into and out of Los Gatos , and especially crosstown. Is that really something you want on your watch? There's only
so much overburdening of our infrastructure our town can handle before it breaks; at least the beach cut through traffic is
not entirely of our making. If you vote against all sense to allow this development however, this mistake, and all its far
reaching future consequences, will be entirely on you . Please think twice and vote NO on the Alberto Way development.
Thank you .
Sincerely,
Meena Nathan
Jennifer Armer
From: Willie Harmatz [mailto:willieharmatz@a ol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 12:22 AM
To: Council
Subject: Letter Concerning 405 Alberto Way
Mayor Marico Sayoc and Council Members,
Town of Los Gatos
110 W . Main St.
Los Gatos , Ca. 95030
Concerning: 405 Alberto Way Project
Hello , this is Willie Harmatz, owner of Athletic Performance at 55 W . Main St. in Los Gatos.
I've been the owner since 1989, and coached Track at Los Gatos High School for over 30 years.
I am in full support of the 405 Alberto Way Project, because it will attract more business in town.
It has shown this already since the Shuttle has started. This helps with the traffic for there will
be less cars in town . There will be more parking in town . We will have more customers overall.
The older community on Alberto Way will be more likely to come downtown. The hotel people
will be more likely to come downtown all using this Shuttle service . And the homes in the area
will certainly use the shuttle as well. I used to live in the apartments across the street, and I
wish we had this shuttle when I lived there, for I went into town every day for work and pleasure.
I don't see any drawback what so ever in any way. The high school kids love the idea as well ,
with those who I have talked to, along with customers of all ages in my store.
Thank You for this opportunity to help the community as we are all in this together!
As a owner/employee , I strongly support this project.
Thank You Again ,
Willie Harmatz
Owner of Athletic Performance
55 W. Main St.
Los Gatos, Ca. 95030
(408) 354-7365 store
(408) 206-9973 cell
Jennifer Armer
From : To Tran [ma il to:t o.tran@gmail.com ]
Sent : Tuesday, September 19, 2017 7 :21 AM
To : Council
Subject: Do Not Approve 405 Alberto Way
Dear Council Member,
I'm writing to urge you not to approve the propo sed development by LP Acqui sitions. Ba sed on the one and a
half year study of our town planning commi ss ion, the proposed size of th is development will bring more harm
than good to our town .
Dear Planning commission,
RECE!VED
StP 1 9 7011
TOV.~J OF l ns GATOS
Pi.At\ ''" ....J lJ.'JISiON
My family and I are writing to you in regards to The 401-405 Alberto development project.
My family are residents at Las Casitas on Alberto Way, which is the adjacent property to 401 -
405 Alberto Way, and we have lived in Los Gatos for a number of years. We are uncomfortable
identifying our names since shortly after our family member spoke at one of the planning
department meetings, our personal property was vandalized at Las Casitas. Therefore we are
also uncomfortable speaking at the planning commission meeting, but we want to make sure that
you know people at Las Casitas are very unhappy with the proposal for the construction at 405
Alberto Way. We have asked reps of the Los Gatos Planning Department, such as Jennifer
Armer to be confidential and not to mention our names for the public record.
We are very concerned and dissatisfied with the size of the construction project proposed by
Lamb. Alberto way is very narrow mostly residential (winding) street that does not even have
much room to accommodate the current existing traffic. We are concerned about the current
traffic flow and the safety; if you try to get out of our driveway to make a right when there is just
one car coming out of the adjacent driveway (405 Alberto Way) that is also trying to make a turn
onto Alberto Way (from the driveway going right or occasionally left) or if there is another car
just driving straight it can be very dangerous and you have to be very careful. If you don't
believe us, please come and try it yourself at different times during the day and wait until a car
passes going straight (on both sides of the street) and try when there is a car making a right from
the adjacent drive way. Therefore, the proposal for over 300 cars and over 300 new parking
spots will lead to a lot of new traffic and will make it very difficult and dangerous to leave Las
Casitas -safely and in a timely basis . Even if there were only 200 parking spots for 200 cars, it
would still lead to too much additional traffic because of the narrow curvy road on Alberto Way.
Please be our guests to come risk your lives trying to get out of our complex -especially during
busy times during the morning /day/night. You will see it is hard to safely get in and out of Las
Casitas in the current condition of traffic with current number of parking spots and patrons
driving in and out of Alberto 405.
The proposed increase for the new parking spots, proposed huge construction project for the
buildings to accommodate 1 OOs of new workers coming to Alberto way, increase resulting traffic
problem for the entire town, will be unacceptable to subject all residents in general of Los Gatos
to have to deal with a 2 year construction project (big trucks coming in and out all day) and over
300 or 200 (whatever increase number is approved) extra cars coming into the center of the town
once the project is completed, which will slow up all of traffic coming and going around the
town, Highway 9, Highway 17, downtown Los Gatos, Los Gatos Blvd, etc. and will very
negatively affect all residents (time to wait in traffic, safety, emergency vehicles to senior and all
resident s on Alberto Way and in Los Gatos in general).
Additionally, I am not sure what the status is for the planning related to the other very large
office complex construction on Alberto Way at the end of the street which is a cul-de-sac, which
may add 1 OOs of other new vehicles each day on this already congested street.
Page 1 of2 Unhappy residents of Las Casitas!
We all got a taste of what bad traffic looks like with the "beach traffic" over the last couple of
months on the weekends, but this newly proposed construction project which includes the
underground parking lot, will grossly negative impact and affect traffic all week long and will
affect all residents and business owners in Los Gatos. The businesses in Los Gatos will actually
suffer not benefit since fewer Los Gatos residents will shop in downtown Los Gatos or in Los
Gatos in general if there is a lot of traffic. We will have to find other options and locations
where there is not as much traffic. People who would be working at the newly proposed
development, most likely don't have much time to shop, get their hair done, etc. during the day.
The traffic is a big problem now if you are trying to find a spot to park to eat downtown, and a
couple of proposed shuttles won't do anything to help this problem especially since there will just
be more traffic so people will go eat somewhere else.
My family and other families in our complex at Las Casitas have kids and pets who will be at
great risk for being hit by construction trucks and cars. It is not safe now to ride bikes, and it
really won't be safe with this planned development.
There is also a very big problem with air and noise pollution from the construction which will
affect all 4 residential communities on Alberto Way , especially people with breathing and heart
issues, etc. and we have lOOs of senior citizens who live on Alberto Way, who will be negatively
impacted health wise and will have extra trouble driving and walking around all of the increased
number of cars and trucks during and after the construction. There will be a lot of noise from
construction for residents who stay home during the day for whatever reasons; therefore,
residents would appreciate less noise and a shorter construction project, which is another reaso n
why we don't want an underground parking garage to be built and why we only want a smaller
scale development project to be considered.
We do not want the developer to build a new underground parking structure that will provide
parking for employees; we believe if anything is rebuilt or redone, it should be built with a
similar plan and architectural layout and style, with only a surface street parking lot which will
limit the number of cars and incoming traffic to the street and to the center of town, and we think
the developer should only be able to build a structure that is similar to what has been existing. If
it has to be increased, then we propose only 35% to 50% of his proposal size -keeping the
building on a smaller scale so the building won't block residents views across the street and won't
be towering over our homes which would restrict our privacy in our complex. Our trees should
not be killed and removed for this project.
We believe, Lamb should ideally find another part of the town to build hi s project or another
town; somewhere that is not mixed residential and commercial especially with the size of his
project -it should just be commercial -for example on Los Gatos Blvd or on Winchester Blvd
/North Santa Cruz, etc.
Thank you for consideration!
Very unhappy residents of Las Casitas!
Page 2 of2 Unhappy residents of Las Casitas!
Jennifer Armer
From: John F. Kim [mailto:jca sekim @yahoo .com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 10 :52 AM
To: Council
Subject: Comment on TC agenda item #12 : I oppose the development plan for 401 -409 Alberto Way
Dear LG Town Counc il ,
As a 5-year resident of LG , I wanted to let you know I OPPOSE the current plan for redevelopment of an office building at
401 -409 Alberto Way. I am concerned it will cause too much additional traffic congestion on Highway 9 during weekday
commute hours. You should ask the developer to scale ba c k the project size to a more neighborhood-friendly level in
order to win approval.
--John Kim
55 Roberts Road , Unit C
Los Gatos , CA 95032