Loading...
Attachment 27 - Public Comment received between 1101 September 19, 2017 to 1100 September 28, 2017Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: September 19 , 20 17 Mayor Marice Sayoc & Council Members Tow n of Lo s Gatos I I 0 E. Main Street OS Gatos, CA 95030 Re : 405 Alberto Way Ma yor Marico Sayoc & Co uncil Members, Ian <ian@summitbicycles.com> Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:14 PM voiceheard@ 40lalbertoway.com Please approve 405 Alberto Way Summit Bicycles 11 I East Main Street Lo s Gatos, C A 95030 My name is Ian Chri stie and I am a bu sine ss owner of Summit Bic yc les in do wnt ow n Los Gatos, I wa nt to vo ice my support for a larger and more modem office bu il ding at 405 Alberto Way. Please accept thi s letter as my supp ort fo r a new develo pment proposed fo r 405 Alberto Way. As a downtown Los Gatos business ow ner, I can spea k fr o m first-hand experience how imp ortant it is that we attract a s ma ny c ustom ers as possible. Not on ly will t hi s ne w C LASS A o ffi ce bui lding bring hundred s of new emp loyees to Los Gatos, it does so wit hout cloggi ng Los Gatos streets during the day via their proposed sh utt le serv ice. It seems that Los Gatos wo uld be int ere sted in projects that revita li ze agi ng an d de teriorati ng bui ldings with new , state-of-the-an and sustainable building designs. 4 05 Alb erto Way should be approved immediately. It 's good fo r Los Gatos. Our down to wn bu sinesse s need e very opportunity to improve c ustome r traffic. Our li vlihood depe nd s on it. Please approve the new development planned fo r 4 05 Alberto Way . Thi s is th e right co mmerc ia l rea l estate de ve lopment at the right time . Your approva l is essen tia l to improving the bus iness climate in downt own Los Gatos. Than k yo u, Ia n Christie Pres ident/Owner Summit Bi cyc les ATTACHMENT 2 7 Jennifer Armer From: Carolyn Hornberger [mailto:carolyn hornberger@icloud .com] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:52 PM To : Council Subject: Development @ Alberto Way Please follow the recommendation by the Planning Dept and DENY the proposed development of a massive complex at Hwy 9 and 17. We don't need to add to the already horrendous congestion in this town. Thanks, Carolyn Hornberger Jennifer Armer From : Patricia Blackburn [mailt o :blkbrn pat@comcast .net] Sent: Tue sday, September 19, 2017 4 :11 PM To : Council Subject: 405 Alberto Way Please deny this development as currently structured. Thank you. Patricia Blackburn 17330 Clearview Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 Jennifer Armer From: Nathan Sacco [m ailto :n atha n sacco@yahoo.com ] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 7:30 PM To: Council Subject : I oppose the development on Alberto way I can't make the town council meeting tonight but wanted to lend my voice to the citizens who oppose this project. As a resident who must drive through this area every day I can't image how much worse the quality of life would be if we tried to put several hundred more cars coming through and trying to make a left turn onto Alberto way every morning. It's already dangerous enough for our kids . Please don't let this development happen . -Nathan Sacco Vista Del monte Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Raymond Toney < raymond .toney2@verizon.net > Thursday, September 21, 2017 12 :55 PM Jennifer Armer 401 -409 Alberto Way Los Gatos Concerning Speakers at the Town Council Meeting of the 19th Sept. One speaker in the FOR the project was a speaker whose name is RON TATE. He did not disclose that he is a DEVELOPER. I KNOW because I purchased one of his Town Homes in Las Piedras Ct, in Campbell. He was also the one who brought up the possibility of a lawsuit by the developer if the Town Council didn't cave in and pass this massive construction project. Because the forty acre parcel at Lark Ave was mishandled allowing for the current laws suit, doesn't mean that 401 Alberto Way was likewise mishandled . The developer was given a wide range of possible approvable sizes from which to select by the Planning Commission . Instead they stayed with the oversized model they originally proposed. Developers, if this is passed by the Town Council , will open up the possibility of a lawsuit on every project placed in front of them. They must stand firm behind the Planning Commission's decision . PS< No one has brought up the single exit from the 2 level underground parking garage. All other Los Gatos garages have two exits and entrances . Raymond M Toney 453 Alberto Way, #241 Los Gatos Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: To whom it may concern, Covell , Mike (SJC) <Mike.Covell@colliers.com> Friday, September 22, 2017 1:49 PM voiceheard@401albertoway.co m I am a Supporter of 405 Alberto Way, Los Gatos Cla ss A Office Building Project I attended the Town Council meeting on the 19th and after learning more about the town of Los Gatos and their needs, I am a huge supporter of the project. It will bring much commerce to the downtown local businesse s. Mike Covell Associa te CA license No. 02040499 Direct +1 408 282 3917 I Mobi le +1 650 704 4683 Main +1 408 282 3800 I Fax +1 408 283 4657 mike.covell@colliers.com I Add as Contact Colliers International 450 West Santa Clara Street I San Jose , CA 95113 I United States www.colliers.com - Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: To all Addressees: Gerald Hamilton <ghamilton29@gmail.com> Monday, September 25 , 2017 10:56 AM Marice Sayoc ; Vice Mayor Rob Rennie ; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; BSpector Jennifer Armer Re : 401 -409 Alberto Way Los Gatos, CA 2ndLtrToTownCouncilOfLosGAtos.doc Attached is my second letter to you all dated this September 25, 2017, once again objecting to the "Architectural & Site Approval Application S-15-056" and its related "Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009, both of which were DENIED by the Planning Commission on 05/10/2017, but Appealed to the Town Council on 09/19/2017. We would appreciate your retrieval and reading of both the attached letter AND our first letter dated August 29, 2017, addressing this development proposal.and the appeal thereof. You will then know of our objections to these applications in total and why we are respectfully requesting you uphold your Planning Commission's Denial and deny the applicants appeal. Thank you, one and all. Respectfully submitted by Gerald E. Hamilton and Sondra T. Hamilton 451 -Alberto Way, D153 972-890-4772 September 25, 20 17 Marko Sayoc, Mayor Rob Rennie, Vice-Mayor GERALD E. HAMIL TON 451 ALBERTO WAY D153 LOS GATOS, CA 95032 Marcia Jensen, Council Member Steve Leonardis, Council Member Barbara Spector, Council Member LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 110 E. MAIN S T REET LOS GATOS, CA 95030 Re: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY Dear Mayor Sayoc, Vice-Mayor Rennie and Council Members Jensen, Leonardis & Spector: Please refer to my letter to each and all of you dated August 29, 2017, which I respectfully request you re-read to fully understand it and my/our additional objections to the proposed development as set forth hereinafter. In that Randy Lamb, representing himself and his entities, LP Acquisitions, LLP and/or Lamb Partners, rejected suggestions from the Council to reduce the square footage in his proposed building/s, saying it would "NOT Be Feasible", we must emphatically remind this Town Council that it has NO concern/s nor responsibility to consider the "feasibility" of a proposed project! It IS however, totally appropriate for this Council to determine the appropriate size and design of Any and All proposed projects within their jurisdictions, particularly to relate all proposed project designs, content and relationship to t he immediate and adjacent properties, the owners and occupants thereof, to a proposed project. This is EXACTLY what your Planning Commission did throughout its deliberations! H owever, there ARE some absolute elements of this 401-409 Alberto Way project that ARE known and available to the Council and public and should be understood that ARE known factors affecting any new construction to replace the existing office buildings currently on this site, which were constructed in 1966, fifty-one years ago! They are: Page T wo Letter to the Los Gatos Town Council September 25, 2017 LP Acquisitions, LLP has only acquired and there is recorded an Agreement of Sale dated January 26, 2015, from the current owner, CWA Realty, a CA corporation under and by which it may acquire 401-409 Alberto Way. There is neither an expiration date nor price for the subject property set forth in said agreement, so that "feasible" factor is unknown at this time, at least of record! It is of record that the current owner, CW A Realty, acquired the subject property in January of 1986 for approximately $1,268,000.00 cash and assumption of a small remaining balance of an existing Note and Deed of Trust. Its 2016-17, County of Santa Clara Co. Assessor's value is $5,999.653.00 ($1,715,924.00 Land and $4,283,129.00 Improvements) and the taxes are $73,077.66). There is NO sale/purchase price of record, BUT it must be well in excess of $6,000,000.00, a VERY significant "feasible" Factor! There is 31,994 square feet of existing office structures including twenty-two individual offices. Due to the age and neglected state of repairs and maintenance it is reasonable to assume the Seller has received considerable cash consideration for the granting of an exclusive right to acquire the property for IF the sale is NOT consummated the deferred maintenance and repairs will require considerable cash investment in its revitalization. It is very pertinent to note ONLY two tenants remain in occupancy! I thank you in advance for considering my input in what could be a fme development if reduced to a reasonable size and design. There is but one and only vehicle entrance to Alberto Way and it is just unfathomable to believe it can begin to satisfy the needs of any large office building with 300 +-hundreds of cars in and out daily without stifling the ingress and egress of all 250 +/-residents on this essentially a narrow, residential street. Your votes to decline this project as currently proposed is urgently and passionately requested. We are confident you all will consider your voters and residents on Alberto Way. Thank you so much. Exhibit #1 Attached Cc: Jennifer Armer Associate Planner, Town of Los Gatos (jarmer @losgatos.gov) Exhibit #1 Gerald E. Hamilton is a graduate of San Jose State University in 1953. He obtained a Business Degree and also obtained his California Real Estate Brokers License in 1953. He also enjoyed his two years, '51 &'52 as a member of the Spartan Football team as a Quarterback, defensive back and punter! Subsequently he became associated with and then owned and operated Cooper-Challen Realty Co., a very successful California corporation, hired and supervised a great many successful Salesmen and other Broker licensees. He personally represented a great number of the original Italian landowners of what were this county's and perhaps THE most beautiful and bountiful farms/ranches certainly in California, if not the United States of America. His former clients represent a cross-section of the commercial, industrial and residential development in Santa Clara County. He also has personally and with a number of former partners, developed and constructed single-family and multi-family projects as well as a number of office buildings. He has often said, he had been blessed to live and conduct his business in this wonderful County. He also was a partner in a short-term ownership of that former school building on the east side of University Avenue which has been converted to commercial occupancies before the Town finally constructed its single-story garage. He and his associates just could not financially maintain their ownership and wait for the crucial and needed parking, thus re-sold the property. Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: To the Town Council; Joan K Larson <j oanklarson@aol.com > Monday, Sep t ember 25, 2017 1:37 PM Jennifer Armer 401 -409 Alberto Way There is a hydrological and geotechnical data report from Peter Geissler. This ENGEO report needs to be reviewed as it is very important regarding any development on 401-409 Alberto Way. Just awhile ago Safeway here in town had a flood from a storm in their sing le underground parking ga rage . And the Safeway store on North Santa Cruz Avenue sits on a much higher ground than Alberta Way and the Los Gatos Commons. The patio in the unit I reside in has had excess storm water (12/11/2014) and had to be pumped out to avoid entering into my home. This past Winter was a problem, too . The concern with a huge building, deep underground parking garage and 40 surface parking spaces is that it's on a higher elevation. The proposed development is on the same side of the street as the Commons. Will there be a serious problem if excess water heads toward the Commons? Especially since 401-405 will have even less landscaping to absorb some of the water. Where will the storm flooding if for some reason does not go into the underground garage? To the Commons and flooding some of our homes. Please consider this. Look at our location and see how it is situated on a lower elevation . Thank you for attention to this matter. Joan K La rson 441 Alberto Way #114 Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-348 -6 698 Sent from my iPhone Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Raymond Toney < raymond.toney2@verizon .net > Monday, September 25 , 2017 2:31 PM Jennifer Armer Re: 401 -409 Alberto Way Los Gatos Dear Jennifer ; To give the Town Council some honorable reasons to turn down this project: 1. /REJECT IT WITH THE PROVISO THAT IT BE RESUBMITTED AT THE LOWER SQUARE FOOT AGE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 2 . REJECT IT ON A SAFETY ISSUE! ONE EXIT FROM A TWO STORY PARKING GARAGE IS NOT ENOUGH IN CASE OF FIRE. SMOKE FROM THE FIRE CAN OBLITERATE VISION FOR DRIVERS TRYING TO ESCAPE. THE SAFEWAY DOWNTOWN, WITH FEWER PARKING PLACES ON ONE LEVEL, HAS TWO EXITS ON TWO STREETS. 3. THE PROJECT IS TOO BIG FOR THE STREETSCAPE. 4. BACK UP THE TOWN'S PLANNING COMMISSION WHO LABORED OVER THIS PROJECT AND GAVE THE DEVELOPER SEVERAL CHOICES WHICH WERE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED . 5 . BOWING TO THE DEMANDS OF THE DEVELOPER AND APPROVING THIS PROJECT WILL ONLY OPEN UP THE POSSIBILITY OF MORE PROJECTS WHICH ARE DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WINDING UP ON THE TOWN COUNCIL'S DESK. Raymond Toney 453 Alberto Way, #241 Los Gatos , Ca . 95032 Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Marietta Riney < mariettariney@gmail.com > Monday, September 25 , 2017 4:03 PM Jennifer Armer Loretta Fowler; Marilyn Basham; jfjones39@yahoo.com; Suzanne Currie Noble; jmitt@comcast.net; bobburkeat@gmail.com; Roman R 401-405 Alberto Way project Jennifer; would you please circulate this e-mail to the Town Council. Thank you for all your efforts as the staff planning leader for this project. To the Town Council : I am a resident and homeowner of the Los Gatos Commons condos. I believe my opposition to this 401-405 Alberto Way project is unanimously held by the residents of Alberto Way. These issues have been brought before the Planning Commission at their hearings and the Town Council hearings on August 24 and September 19. Sent from my iPhone Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Continued e-mail: Marietta Riney <mariettariney@gmail.com > Monday, September 25 , 2017 4:2 0 PM Jennifer Armer Loretta Fowler; Marilyn Basham; jfjones39@yahoo.com; jmitt@comcast.net; bobburkeat@gmail.com; Roman R 401 -40 5 Alberto Wa y project In the event that these objections and opposit ion are ignored and the decision of the town Council favors the developer, I wish to address the future of the town of Los Gatos. If this project is allowed to proceed ,on what grounds well any further project be denied,s ince the public outcry is being ignored , the increased traffic impact is being ignored, the appropriateness of site and size of the building is being ignored, and it has now become the responsibility of the town Council to make sure any project is economically feasible for the developer. · My final que stion is why would you render the planning commission and their unanimous decision to deny this project completely insignificant??You will be discouraging any future planning commission to take their function seriously and do the due diligence their task requires . Thank you for your thoughtful consideration . Respectfully, Marietta Riney 449 Alberto Way #240 Los Gatos . 95032 Sent from my iPhone Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Dick McGowan <dickmcgowan114@gmail.com> Tuesday, September 26, 2017 1:01 PM Jennifer Armer Alberto Way It seems almost impossible to visualize that we may have a huge building on our almost one way street but with courage and sympathy hoping that the city would reject this project,it is our way of life that is at stake. Thank you, Connie and Dick McGowan "The Commons" Sent from my iPad September 26, 2017 Dear Town Council members, RECEIVED SEP 2 6 2017 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION We residents of Alberto Way are aware that you have been inundated with letters but because the stakes are so high for us, we write this response to some of the comments made in the 9/19 hearing that were misleading or inaccurate. The directive to reduce the size of the building. At the 9/19 hearing the developer was asked why he refused to consider an alternative, that is, a reduced size . He argued that in the 8/24 hearing there were a lot of numbers mentioned so he thought it was an arbitrary request on the part of the Planning Commission. And, a smaller size was not economically feasible . (In the 5/10 hearing, the developer gave the economic feasibility reason for refusing all Commission suggestions (pp. 23, 125, 127). Our attorney has addressed the feasibility issue in the letter to the Town Council submitted by The Commons on 9/13 and in her letter of 9/18. In the 8/24 hearing, the Commissioners offered the developer flexibility (p. 119). Commissioner Erekson made a motion to direct the developer to make a "significant reduction in size and scale," "about a third ... GO-something" "at least for" O'Donnell. A "significant reduction" could be 32% or 41%, depending on the design, Erekson said (8/24: 119). O'Donnell remarked that he was "not altogether sure that one- third is enough" (p. 94); "at least start there" (p. 104). Two other Commissioners addressed the question of significant reduction . Commissioner Kane disagreed with O'Donnell, suggesting instead a project of 43,000 s.f. (pp. 50-51, 105, 118). Commissioner Hanssen suggested that the second building (on the north side of the site) be removed [leaving a project of about 45,000 s.f.], as this could avoid blockage of the views of the Santa Cruz Mountains (p . 96). She wanted the developer to "think about what's already there" (p. 110), as did Kane (p. 105). Commissioner Erekson's own view was that "the rest of the neighborhood" is "medium-density" but the proposed project is "much higher density" and that makes it out of a scale and character appropriate to the neighborhood . He wanted a project that "looks like it belongs in the neighborhood with" ... "what's there." (21,757 s.f.; 33% coverage --p. 99, 117). Commissioner Hudes also asked the developer to reduce the size, keeping in mind the existing buildings (p. 109). The "Alternatives" section of the DEIR was referred to by both O'Donnell and Kane but they did not have a clear idea of the three plans. O'Donnell was clear that the 74,260 s.f. "Reduced" plan was not acceptable (p . 118). This left the "Existing Square Footage plan, which Kane referred to as Plan B but he suggested square footage of 43,000 rather than 31,000 s. f . Statements of two speakers from The Commons need to be corrected . The Planning Commission did not unanimously favor a 45,000 s. f . project; rather, a reduced size project. Also "the Planning Commission" did not suggest that a 45,000 s.f. project would be appropriate; rather, some Commission members did . The public view of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The speaker misspoke when he said the photos did not show the story poles of the 83,000 s.f. building. These photos were taken from the west sidewalk Sept. 3, 2017: a wide corridor view on the north side of the site; a very small corridor view in the center; a narrow but significant view on the south side . The existing buildings are positioned so these views are accessible to us. The photos show how the proposed 83,000 s. f . building blocks our public views. The EIR was discussed by the developer's team on 9/19 without acknowledging contradictory information. First, the Geissler report (see letters and commentary in the 5/10 hearing) argued that the construction of a two story underground garage on the creek bed would likely result in damage to neighboring properties. ENGEO now admits there could be damage, a "low risk" of it, but in the DEIR ENGEO failed to address the issue at all. Second, the Hexagon traffic report's conclusion that there would be no significant impact from traffic is based on statistical averaging . Commissioner Hanssen elicited an admission from Hexagon {G . Black) that in lived experience there could be very different impacts. For example, 60 cars during one hour: a statistical average of one car per minute but in lived experience there could be 6 cars in 30 seconds, no cars in the next minute, 5 cars in the next 30 seconds, and so on {5/10 hearing, p. 37). One more correction : two speakers said there were 221 residents on Alberto Way. There are 221 units and about 400 residents. Finally, we have carefully considered the developer's grounds for the appeal and responded in detail. We beg you to take into consideration our letter about this {9/13/2017) and our attorney's letter submitted on 9/18 (attached). Thank you for your consideration, Marilyn Basham, Loretta Fowler, Jean Jones, Marietta Riney-representing The Los Gatos Commons Roman Rufanov-representing Las Casitas Melanie Kemp-representing Bella Vista Villages PROVENCHER & FLA TI, 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 TIORNEYS AT LAW Douglas B. Provencher Gail F. Flatt OF COUNSEL Rachel Mansfield-Howlett Rhowlettlaw@gmail.com 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 grade 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 supports the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Project and urges 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 applicant asserts the Planning Commission's denial of the Project while leaving the EIR certification to a later date "turns CEQA on its head." The applicant 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 applicant 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 applicant'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) 16 Cal.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 Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4 .. 412; City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the 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. The CEQA Guidelines state that a visual resources impact is considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would "have a substantial adverse 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 Page 3 of 5 evidence includes "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) 29Cal.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]; (Sav e 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. Page 4 of 5 Sincerely, Attorney for Los Gatos Commons, Pueblo de Los Gatos, Las Casitas, and Bella Vista Page 5 of 5 September 13, 2017 At the Planning Commission hearing of May 10, 2017, the Commissioners evaluated whether or not LP Acquisitions had made "significant" changes to their proposed project at 401-409 Alberto Way . The original proposal was for two office build i ngs totaling over 93,000 sq . ft . The Commission gave directions for changes and, on May 10, the developer presented a proposal for one building of 83,000 sq . ft. Finding that significant changes had not been made, the Commission denied the project. The reasons for the denial are contained in the "whole record" (5/10: 162-64), that is, the transcripts from the hearings of 8/10 and 8/24/2016 and 5/10/17. We residents of the Los Gatos Commons wish to respond to the developer's appeal of the Commission's decision to deny approval for the 401-409 Alberto Way project. We support the Planning Commission 's decision and offer counter arguments to the developer's grounds for appeal. First Reason for the Developer's Appeal : The Planning Commissi on erred o r abused its d i scr etion because the Commission's decision to deny the Project and refusal to certi fy the Project EIR were not based on substantial evidence The Developers Arguments: 1. The Commission subjectively consider ed only one General Plan policy (1.4) and onl y one Commercial Design Guideline (1.4), arbitrarily disregarding the entire General Plan, zoning code, and COG and choosing not to apply the objective development standards to the Project. A. Did the Commission only consider one GP policy and one COG? In point of fact, the Commission also found inconsistencies with LU 1.8 and LU 6.5 (both "Mandatory") and to CDG 2.3 .3 and 2.3 .5 by number.1 tn addition, the Commission pointed to inconsistencies with 25 add itional GP policies identified not by number but by quoting or paraphrasing them . 2 1 LUl.8 (8/24: 7, 98, 100, 110; 5/10: 8 -9, 129, 154); LU6 .5 {8/10: 123, 125, 135; 8/24: 7, 23, 30-34, 37-39, 51-52, 75, 96, 99, 110; 5/10: 20, 26, 28, 122, 129, 156, 163); CDG2 .3.3 (8/10 : 20; 8/24: 15, 107, 115); CDG2 .3 .5 (8/24: 30, 109- 110). 2 LU4-8/24 : 7, 98, 100; 5/10: 154, 159;LU4 .2-8/24: 54; 5/10: 154, 156, 159; LU6-8/24:51-52, 72, 98; 5/10: 153- 57; LU6 .1 -8/24: 7, 27-29, 44-45, 49-50; 5/10: 135, 139-47; 153-54, 156-57, 159; LU6 .2--8/24: 7, 30-31, 51, 98; LU6 .3-8/10: 18, 20; 8/24: 15, 107, 115; 5/10: 128, 153-56; LU6.4-8/24: 7, 30, 54; 5/10: 153, 156-57; LU6 .8 1 B. Was the finding that the project was "too big" arbitrary? Actually, as Commissioner O'Donnell said, "Reduction in size addresses a lot of 11roblems" (8/24: lQ.4). Some of these problems: • The proposed two-s tory "massive,", "more bulky and massey," imposing building, with a "strong sense of bulk" [as described by Commissioners) (5/10: 8-9 , 21 -23, 26, 28, 154, 156), which stretches almost from one end of the site to the other, is dramatically larger in scale and mass than neighboring structures. A smaller building (s) would be the right fit with the character and sense of place for the neighborhood. • The public views of the hills would be totally blocked by this 83,000 sq . ft. building (and the private view from Pueblo de Los Gatos also blocked) (5/10: 125, 163). The existing smaller buildings do not (and other smaller, well placed buildings would not) block the views. • The construction of a two-story underground garage for 330 cars will likely cause property damage to neighboring properties, according to expert civil engineer and hydrologist, Dr. Peter Geissler (5/10: 139-40, 142-44, 146-47, 153-54). A smaller office complex with fewer cars to park would not require a two-story underground garage . • The residents of Alberto Way will exper ience a significant increase in traffic on their narrow, single access street and at the intersection with Lo s Gatos-Saratoga Road due to the introduction of 330 cars going in and out of the project (5/10: 35-37, 128, 131-33, 154, 156-57). A smaller office complex with fewer tenants would bring fewer cars . • Las Casitas residents will lose privacy with the two-story proposed building placed adjacent to their development (5/10: 24-25, 33-37, 128, 155). If the office building (s) was smaller, it would not have to be so close to Las Casita s. C. Was the finding that the project was "too big" entirely subjective? (Mand .)-8/24: 30, 51, 72, 74-75, 96-98, 100, 104-05, 115-17; 5/10: 125, 128-29, 153-54, 159, 161; LU9.9 (Mand.)-8/10: 18, 20; 8/24: 15, 107, 115; 5/10: 24-25, 128, 155-56. In CD, C01.2 (Mand .): 8/24: 51; 5/10: 125, 153-54, 1 59, 163; C01.4 (Mand .)-8/10: 136; 8/24:51; 5/10: 125, 153-54, 159, 163; C016.1 : 8/24: 6-7, 96, 109-10; 5/10: 125; C016.3 (Mand.}-8/24 : 6-7, 96, 109-10; 5/10: 125, 163. In TRA, TRA2.5-8/24: 96-97; 5/10: 154; TRA 3-8/10:115,117;8/24 :19,54,82, 108;5/10:156;TRA 3.10 -8/10: 115, 117;8/24:19,54,82, 108;5/10:156; TRA3 .12-5/10: 157; TRA5 .4-8/10: 115, 117; 5/10: 131, 133. VIS 2 & 3: 5/10: 154, 159-60; HSlO & HOU5 .3 &6.4 -5/10: 15 4 . And in COG, 1.3: 5/10: 1 54, 158; COG 1.5.1: 5/10: 1 53. 2 On the contrary: • The square footage of the building is dramatically and significantly greater than that of any other commercial building on Alberto Way and much greater than any other office building in the neighborhood (see attached illustration). • The density of the proposed office building in terms of its tenants is far greater than that of the "medium-density" neighborhood of Alberto Way (8/24 : 99, 110). The building will have 330 plus tenants and the developer ind icated that there would be no "cap" on the number of tenants (5/10:20). • Photographs show that the public view of the hills from the west sidewalk, used regularly and frequently by Commons residents and by other neighborhood residents, will be completely blocked by the proposed building (see attached illustration-views from 3 vantage points). • Alberto Way is a single access street that is also narrow and windy. (That is why there was so much talk about straightening and widening it to accommodate traffic and allow easy access for emergency vehicles.) Note General Plan TRA 2.5. • Seniors are about half the adult population of the Alberto Way neighborhood. There are about 335 adult residents. Seniors number 133 at The Commons and about 37 at the three other developments combined . The presence of seniors (by and large, reti red) driving and walking through the neighborhood throughout the day gives the ne ighborhood its character and sense of place to a great degree . They are especially vulnerable to traffic delays and dangerous traffic conditions given their frequent need for medical services and therapeutic walking. Thus, it is reasonable for the Commissioners to give weight to the needs of seniors (5/10: 154, 157). D. Did the developer achieve 80-90% of what the Planning Commission directed so that their denial was subjective? Frankly, no. Consider five changes that the developer suggests meet the directive. The changes actually do not meet the directive. • First and second, the developer claims he reduced the size of the building significantly: The two buildings were combined into one and the square footage reduced by 9,000 sq . ft . (9 - 10%), and the height was reduced by 5.5-6 feet, which reduced the volume by 25% . However, the Commission found 9,000 sq. ft. an insignificant reduction (5/10: 128, 152- 56, 159-61), and building size is considered by the Town in terms of square feet, not "volume" (5/10: 10). • The other three changes address the neighbors' concerns, according to the developer: The building was relocated to the rear of the site to enhance the views of the mountains when viewed from property on the east side of the street. 3 However, the view was not "enhanced" but, rather, remains completely blocked on the west side (the public view of neighbors who walk up and down that sidewalk) and largely blocked on the east side of the street. The building was shifted ten feet away from the property line of Las Casitas . However, the Las Casitas residents still have concerns about loss of privacy due to the second story windows that look from the proposed building down on their yards and windows (5/10: 104-05}. The surface parking was increased in response to concerns from the Town and the neighbors who will lose eight parking places on the street. However, none of the surface parking will be available to the residents, according to the developer (8/24: 12; also personal communication from Mr. Lamb at a community meeting}. E. Did the Commission privilege the neighbors' perspectives on neighborhood scale over "community expectations" and town scale? MR. LAMB ALSO ARGUED THAT THE NEIGHBORS WANTED NO DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE (5/10:31). Actually, the project's square footage compared to other office buildings in Los Gatos was a concern of Commissioners, and Town records show that the largest office building south of Lark is at 750 University at 62,750 sq. ft. (5/10: 8-9). University is not a quiet residential street; the speed limit is 35 mph. The proposed building is more than twice the size of Palo Alto Medical Center (40,000 sq. ft.) on Los Gatos Blvd. Moreover, letters from the residents' representatives August 18, 2016 advocated for Alternative l, Option 2 ("Existing Square Footage") as described in the DE IR. 3 In t his plan, the existing buildings would be demolished and new structures built. The Planning Commission supported this idea in principle, suggesting that the combined size could be increased from 31,000 sq. ft . to less than 60,000, perhaps to 43,000 (8/24: 4, 46 -48, 50-52, 86 , 94-95, 104-05, 115-19; 5/10: 125, 127-28, 155-56}. Residents do not oppose a reasonable increase over 31 ,000 sq. ft., and representatives from all four developments support a size of 45,000 sq. ft . F. Did the Commission not consider the project's compliance with the zoning code, as the developer argued? 3 DEIR : 6-11. Alternative 1, Option 2 would r esu lt in less potential environmental impact and would meet a portion of the objectives of the proposed project. Arguably only one of the objectives is in question. 4 Actually, the General Plan does not consider the Zoning Code paramount: "Land use decisions encompass not only zoning, but circulation, design, open space, and other factors" (General Plan INT-1). G. Did the Commission arbitrarily/subjectively ignore Cannon Design's conclusion that the project complied with the Town's guidelines? Actually, Mr. Cannon recommends "starting the design with the goal of creating multiple structures with smaller scale modules ... " [similar to the existing complex]. He concluded that the project still seems "to read as one large office building without a breakdown in scale related to the neighborhood or the Los Gatos existing small town scale" and the design does not have "the careful attention to architectural ... detail similar to the Town's residential architecture" (March 17, 2017, p . 3). H. Did the Commission refuse to consider information submitted indicating that a smaller building was infeasible? Actually, (quoting from attorney Rachel Mansfield-Howlett), 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 1181; See also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736; City of Fremont v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (1995) 34Cal.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 5 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 would render it impractical to proceed with the project, as they must. I. Did the Planning Commission abuse its discretion when it refused to certify the EIR? Actually, Mr. Joel Paulson told the Commission it would be "proper" to deny the project and not certify the EIR (5/10: 151, 161). 2. Second Reason for the Developer's Appeal: The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town Council in at least two respects. The developer argues that a municipality has discretion to approve a project even if it is not found to be consistent with "each and every" plan policy. But the Planning Commission did not find that the developer's project was not consistent with every GP policy. 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? In fact, General Plan consistencies are relevant to the approval or disapproval of the CUP application . The Commission had discretion to deny the project. The developer also argues that the General Plan guidelines are merely advisory. That means that the Town can adhere to guidelines. Moreover, some guidelines (those that include "shall") are "mandatory" according to the General Plan. Should these not be considered to have special weight? 6 Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Kr is McFar land -Werner < krisw@hillhouseconstruction.com> Wednesday, September 27, 2017 2:24 PM voice heard@401albertoway.co m Plea se approve 405 Alberto Way I wo uld like to express my continued support for the new Class A office deve lopment on Alberto Way . I've read the letter of justification subm itted by Bl Partners and I'm familiar w ith the site. I believe that this is a necessary and well developed project that fills a need for the town of Los Gatos to increase the amount of Class A office space. The development meets a design intent that would conform to the town's look and feel and wou ld better comply with the principl es of soc ial, economic and ecological su stai nability. It is also widel y understood that this transition to a Class A sustainable building will also encourage tenants that wou ld be a benefit to the town's economy by shopping and spending money in the community. Since the EIR notes that there would be no significant negative impact on traffic either, I see no reason why there should be opposition to this project. With Kindest Regards , Kris McFarland-Werner Director of Business Development COl.t~'E~C l,t,l CON ST~VCTI ON 140 Charcot Ave . San Jose , CA 95131 C : 408.205.4728 krisw@hillhouseconstruction .com Linkedln I Facebook I Twitter J lnstaqram Celebrating 30 Years! From : Cathy J.Cathey<ccat he y@bfr.com> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 10:14:26 AM To: Council ; Jennifer Armer Subject : 405 Alberto Way project Approximately 1.5 years later and the same issue exists-it's TOO BIG. Please respect the thoughtful consideration that the planning commissi on gave to this project last year and require that the size and scope of this bui ldi ng be brought into line with the pla n ning commission's request-Drop the size by a minimum of 30% (in Square feet not cubic feet). Also, don't dig underground for two floors of parking. Consider the aesthetics of the building in terms of the surround i ng neighborhood . Consider the additional traffic this building will bring to all of Los Gatos. Please consider the safety issues in terms of emergency vehicles on this DEAD end street. Finally, consider-what is the soul of our lovely town and where are we going? I'd love to see more local festivals like the recent tomato festival, the Art and Wine events, the Christmas parade, Music in the park, etc. We do these well! When I asked my non-Los Gatos friends to descr i be Los Gatos, they said , "Charming", "Adorable", "Unique". This is what sets us apart from the rest. We don't need to compete with Santa Clara or San Jose-to quote Osca r Wilde, "Be yourself, everyone else is al r eady taken ." So let's improve on the innate qualities of what make Los Gatos a wonderful town and not try to be a "me, too" with other cities in the Bay Area . We've already got the charm, and the uniqueness-why give that away when that is what makes us so special? Thank you, Cathy Cathey (R e sident of 420 Alberto Way "Pueblo de Los Gatos") Ca th y Cathey BROOK Commercial Sales FURNITURE RENTAL Manager S!mpl,ify~ Choogo Brook Furniture Rental 799 E. El Camino Real Suite 200 I Sunnyvale, Ca 94087 P: 4087201252 1M :4086052360 IE: ccathey@bfr.com lnlm @ W'E September 27, 2017 Los Gatos Town Council 11 O E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Jean Farren Jones 443 Alberto Way Unit 8218 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Attention: Marice Sayoc, Mayor Town Council Members Dear Mayor Sayoc and Council Members RECEIVED SEP 2 8 20 17 (!. IC>: 1'5 A1t.1,. TOWi\J G~ l..CS S/>.TOS PLA~!\J~~' r. _ '. P::.'.:O~J I am writing to you in regards to the proposed development at 401 -409 Alberto Way. The developer on numerous occasions has spoken about the lack of 'financial feasibility" of the property with any building less than 83,000 sq ft and therefore he will not even consider anything smaller. A building of that size is simply too big and the impact on our community will negatively affect the quality of life and the value of all the property on Alberto Way The Los Gatos website stated "Los Gatos Commons is one of the only independent senior living communities in the Bay Area" The residents and tax payers of the 110 units, mostly in retirement, often spend time enjoying the beautiful grounds, the view of the mountains when walking on our small street and the many convenient places in Los Gatos. The development as it is planned will create significant disruption to the life style of these seniors and other residents of Alberto Way. Many of these seniors live on limited or fixed incomes and can not afford property values to decline. They invested their retirement income in these homes and should it be necessary transfer to assisted living that income will be needed. As current President of the Los Gatos Commons I urge you not to permit a development of this size be built on our small street. We are happy to work with the Town Council to find a reasonable solution for this property. Sincerely, k~ .{/an ~arren Jones 408-884-8617 jfjones39@yahoo .com From: JoAn Smith [mailto:joan.t.smith @qmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 10:36 AM To: Council Subject: Alberto Way Dear Council Members, I do hope that you will seriously consider voting NO on currently proposed Alberto Way Lamb project. Please save yo ur "yes" for a future proposal that presents itself as a viable development which fits in with community val ue, quality of life and economic sustainability. I reali ze this is a difficult decision. Still , I ask you to vote NO. Please support our Planning Commission and uphold the quality of life that defines Los Gatos as the Gem of the Foothills. Best, JoAn Smith From : Bob Burke <bobburkeat@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, Septembe r 28, 2017 10:39:20 AM To: Rob Rennie; Marcia Jen sen; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardi s Cc: Jennifer Armer; Roman Rufanov; Melanie Kemp Subject: Alberto Way Citizens Comments on Sept 19 TC Meeting Hi, Folks. The se comme nts are being submitted on behalf of the own ers and residents of th e Pu eblo De Lo s Gatos, Bell a Vista Vi ll age and La s Casit as to addre ss : -pe11inent omi ss ion s by Applica nt & contractor s HEX AGON & ENGEO in their answe rs du ring Town Council Q & A -Illu st rate the cause and effe ct of differential settling caused by pumping water from any underground gara ge on the site during con struction (al so known as "dewateri ng") Th e Commons submitted it s com panion commen ts a coup le of day s ago. WS e're deliv eri ng adde d co ntent Regards, Bob Burke Alb e rto Way Citizens Response to September 19 To w n Co uncil Mee t i n g Comm ent s an d Q & A on Application for 4 05 Alberto Way I. During Q & A of Applicant, the building's floor space reduction sought by the Planning Committee was discussed Not covered during the Town Council's Sept 19, 2017 public hearing was the complete Planning Commission's discussions on Aug 24, 2016 and May 10, 2017 about their desired size reduction. Upon review of the meetings videos & transcripts: As to the requested reduction in the building's size: Commissioner Erekson made a motion to direct the developer to make a "significant reduction in size and scale," "at least" a third, 60-something, for O'Donnell. He continued : a "significant reduction could be 32% or 41%, depending on the design. So, the Commissioners were offering the developer flexibility (p. 119). In their discussions, three Commissioners suggested appropriate reductions : 1) O'Donnell said he was "not altogether sure that one-third is enough," (p . 94) "at least start there" (p. 104). Commissioner Kane disagreed, suggesting instead a project of 43,000 s.f. (p . 118). Commissioner Hanssen suggested that the second building (on the north side of the site) be removed (leaving a project of about 45,000 s.f.], as this could avoid blockage of the [public] views of the Santa Cruz Mountains (p. 96). She wanted the developer to "think about what's already there" (p. 110), as did Kane. Commissioner Erekson's view was that the rest of the neighborhood is "medium-density" but the proposed project is "higher density" and that makes it out of scale and character appropriate to the neighborhood. He urged the developer to "look at the commercial property across the street and make the proposed building blend with "what is there." (p. 99, 117). Commissioner Hudes also asked the developer to reduce the size, keeping in mind the existing buildings (p. 109). All are objective requests based on the LG Commercial Design Guidelines and General Plan. II. During Public Comments, Traffic was discussed HEXAGON 's representative assured the Town Council that the Traffic Study was using the "methods the Town & its Consultants wanted and checked." In our April 5, 2017 submission, we presented evidence illustrating the flaws in HEXAGON's Traffic Study on pages 16-27 . It includes photographic evidence rom multiple rush hours showing that the Level of Service (LOS) was an "F" at those times. 11 Page We object to the methods used in the Traffic Study on the basis that the Traffic Study fails to: A) Conclude that the current AM rush hour Level of Service (LOS) on Hwy-9 at Alberto is an "F" which is illustrated by the photos we did submit to the record and by those we weren't allowed to show the Council on Sept 19. Had we been permitted to show the page 16-27 photos progressing at a temporal pace, it would have demons trated the impeded flow of traffic vs. the passage of time, proving that LOS is at an "F." B) Uses an ITE Manual which relies on office building trip generation characterizations based on a series of studies that average 37 years old and do not at all reflect today's office building tenant behavior driving much higher trip generation C) Furthermore, the PM School Rush at 2:30-3:30PM has worsened and is now showing an "F" LOS , as observed on Friday Aug 22, 2017 : the signal at both Los Gatos Saratoga Rd and Los Gatos Blvd are failing and traffic is not clearing out. The root causes of the F LOS are: increased trip generation combined with the line of choke points on Los Gatos Blvd from Van Meter Elementary to Main Street. This section of LG Blvd is 2 lanes with center or right turn pockets, above capacity in rush hour and mu st be relieved before 405 Alberto can be constructed and comply with the General Plan traffic limit provisions . While Applicant and HEXAGON assert in the EIR that viable mitigations are: extend the LGS Rd Eastbound left turn pocket into Alberto Way and coordinate the LGD Rd and Alberto traffic signal with the LGS Rd & LG Blvd traffic signal These two measures are unable to address either of the root causes of the F LOS . The ITE Manual is Obsolete The ITE Manual has never been modernized because the modern ization is not in the interest of its sponsors, who are companies like HEXAGON and their employers who are construction, architecture and development companies. Continued use of the outdated and obsolete ITE Manual reminds this author of the famous "stupid human & pet t r icks" so often presented by comedians. HEXAGON's traffic study is therefore a sham that LP uses hide the true traffic impact from local authorities' views. It did submit merely "averages" in its traffic study, not "maximum" trip generations and ignores the effects of telecommuting, whereby the same seat in offices is today used by multiple telecommuters who arrive for in-person meetings, use the conference room and the seat for an hour each, then leave. So 2-3 trips per seat occur a significant fraction of the time. Furthermore, HEXAGON presents no "trip generation sensitivity study." 21 Page The ITE Manual goes so far on page 12 as to admit its conclus i ons are si mply estimates . This being the case, the Town Council owes the entire Town's Citizenship the protection of using Up to date Trip Generation methods and Infrastructure Upgrades in advance of Development. This project impacts not only Ill. During Council Q & A, Vice Mayor Rennie asked ENGEO's representative about the control of earth settlement during construction. ENGEOs reply addressed control of earth movement from the perimeter during excavation ONLY using shoring. Use of shoring around the perimeter is one of the factor that can cause settlement. The other one is: In our April 5, 2017 submission , we surfaced the settling concern and our Hydrology Expert, Dr Geissler, explained the other settlement threat, which was not mentioned in the Sept 19 TC meeting. We submitted Dr. Geissler's report and this page 29 comment: g) Our Hydrology Expert, Dr Geissler finds that "the local dewatering In the coffer dam needed around the underground parking structure is likely to cause ground subsidence during construction that is large enough to shift foundations of existing buildings within an area of influence 250 feet around the PD. n This includes Las Casitas, Pueblo De Los Gatos, Grill 57, Satellite Health Care & the Inn at Los Gatos. This can cause foundation shifts leading to cracks or pipe breaks to our properties, Las Casitas, Pueblo De Los Gatos, and als o to Grill 5 7, Satellite Health Care & the Bes t Wes tern Inn at Los Gatos. Here's an Illustration showing what happen s from de-watering: pumping hundreds of gallons per minute reduce s the water level in the excavation 's floor to zero. This cau ses uneven drying of the earth beneath the zone of influence where the water is lowered by the excavation . Not to scale, this makes the point of the phenomenon . 3I Page 401 Eart h Se t t l em ent caused by De-Wate rin g During Excava ti on BEFORE EXCAVATION & DE -WATERING (NOW} 405 4-09 Las Casitas Al berto Ground Le vel ound water \.eve\ \:)c\ow gr DURING EXCAVATION , CONCRETE POUR & HARDEN ING Be lla Vista Vi llage Cracks & p i pe breaks occur from - d i fference i n s ea l i~ Cau sed b y de-waterire Be lla Vist<i Before De-Watered Gro und Levef ---------·-··-···-·······················--········J:.:···::i· -=·-·:.:;· ~;;r;;~:r::.::.::.:.:.:.::.=~,.- Su nke 401·.w9 Al berto Gro un Excava t ion for UG Parkir( •eve1 Sunken De-watered L~el Applicant had test borings done at the depth of the Drought, when the water level was at its lowest and failed to disclose the results of the boring near Las Casitas. Engeo authored a bold faced lie that the hole collapsed as the hollow-core d rill bit was withdrawn causing ENGEO to be unable to report on the depth to water. Hollow-core bits are designed to capture a core of earth inside the hollow core to use for analysis, the hole collapse indicates there was water in the boring and the drill bit would still have been recoverable. Applicant has done no re-boring since the drought ended to measure the ground water level. On pages 30 & 31 of our April 5 , 2017 subm ission , we included evidence that the water level on the North side of the 405 Alberto PD (beside Las Casitas) is in the 0-10 feet below ground zone, that to depth to water on the N side of 405 Alberto is 10-20 feet below ground : 41 Page c) Next is a screen shot of the water depth map kept by the Santa Clara Valley Water District for Los Gatos showing the Revised PD site and the neighbors properlies to lie principally in the red 0-10 feet depth to water zone with the comer near to Hwy 9 & Alberio in the orange 10-20 feet zone: The map 's URL is here (you will need to visit the site to zoom in and read the street names & Depth to Water legend): https:llqis. valleywater.orq!GroundwaterE/evations/map.php SI Page " D Cl o ri Q ·'C" ~ <> .i n Cl m t t ~ c:1 ~ ~-:i El '2 -~ J I-W fO GI JC <"M "" - ~ C 0 i S«\llt hltp s. g is.vJ!lit)"l';.11tr.Of9 (010,.rdw .. tt<ttf.,1\0fW"'111.j>l.p 0 x ....... -.......... ----. ---[.,.•~ - Sll.>lt .. -........ .. ·, . ,..J '__, ....... _/ .. . . . --· -~ .._ ___ ...... ... -·-~­-....... _ ... ~;::§ ... - :". ---ii. --L' ·•<t _.,. .:::-:: ::~-:::~ ._.-: ::::~-W:.::~::. ;. ;~~ --· .. -•-11t"f'W1••-- •.e t.: •;e: .... :: 0 . I'!'! 0 0 "f B I C ~ i:r< 'I :.: • (.', This water depth map illustrates why the PD's underground parking structure, in both the Original & Revised designs, would move water toward us by pinching the constricted high water area shown in red, thereby pushing water into the suffounding properties in which underground water is already so close to the surface . This would further elevate the surface water in the surrounding properties. d) Water depth beneath Bella Vista Village (middle of the red 0-10 ft depth to water zone) is a low-lying area so close to the water table that ten townhomes, 110- 132 Cuesta de Los Gatos have sump pumps installed under their ground level concrete slabs which are on a 1.5 foot high perimeter foundation. This area experiences water levels at inches below ground level in wet periods when their pumps operate. d): Bella Vista Village is at high risk to elevated ground water levels as portions of Bella Vista Village lie in a 0-10 feet below ground to water zone as does a portion of the PD's property, all of which is represented in the EIR as being in the 10-20 feet below ground to water zone . e) We note that the location of Boring 8-3, shown below from the EIR, lies on the 0- 10 feet depth to water zone on the map above. Engeo did not indicate the water depth, noting that the boring collapsed when removing the hollow auger. We find this curious since the purpose of the hollow auger was to extract the core intact from the auger itself: a collapse of the boring walls would have had no impact on the core and therefore, the water depth would have been found. When we contacted Engeo with questions, they refused to confirm anything. EN<2£0 -- 6 I Page AU t6CA7idld AJl """'6iiliff , .. ,. ROL.""" Furthermore, we submitted evidence that the depth to water is extremely shallow (0-2 feet below ground) below the Bella Vista Village homes on Cuesta De Los Gatos that border the N side of 420 Alberto Way and requires sump pumps in their crawl spaces inside their perimeter foundations that run during the winter to remove excess water. During excavation for underground parking at 405 Alberto Way , the water level below ground will be 0-10 feet below ground on the North Side (by Las Casitas). Dewatering will remove water in the excavated hole for the underground garage and this "dries" out" the ground beneath the surrounding structures , causing the earth to contract a lot near the excavation to a little at 125 feet away to none at 250 feet, according to Dr. Geissler's report. Thus the foundation settling in structures located from Oto 250 feet from the outer wall of the coffer dam . Water within the excavation is highly likely to be as high 1 s 71 Pa ge From: sherry <sher ry l 7s@ p ro digy.net > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 10:54:25 AM To: Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen ; BSpector ; Marica Sayoc; Steven Leonardis Cc: Jennifer Armer Subject: Redeveloopment of 405 Alberto Way To Town Council Members Re : Current redevelopment proposal at 405 Alberto Way I am opposed to this proposed development on this site as it will bring too much traffic into the neighborhood, and specifically onto our small , dead end street. It will be a huge bottleneck. Proponents point to the pro ximity of the freeway, as if that waves all traffic concerns away. I would like to point out that these freeways, in and of themselves , are also bottlenecks , and will do little to ease the situation . H ighway 17 both north and south , are bottlenecked frequently during all hours of the day. In addition , traffic ex iti ng Highway 17 exits onto Highway 9 , which is also frequently bottlenecked .as well , with local traffic, traffic to the various area schools, residents commuting to work and others commuting through Los Gatos to other points or to enter Highway 17. I strongly urge you not to approve this redevelopment, or any redevelopment that significantly increases traffic flow here . In addition, any planned development at that corner , should allow for , and insist on , a right turn directly onto the property from Highway 9 as well as a dedicated center turn lane on Alberto from the Highway 9 intersection to the end of the development with the land for this lane being provided by the development. This would help Alberto Way residential traffic to get through . It is only fair that if the development is bringing a surge of traffic that they provide the land for the widening of the street to include such a lane , and not take away our on street parking for it. The residents should not be made to pay for the additional traffic in that way. Thank you Sherry Burke Resident 420 Alberto Way Los Gatos From: J Scott <gatosbell a@gmai l.com > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 10:59 :5S AM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Subject: Please keep our town from "being bought & bribed" by developers T own Council ; Togeth er with the famil y that o wns t he land 401 -409 Alberto Wa y, you sho uld t ell t his d evel o per n o , and work to find a better project fo r this pro p erty . r\ project without an undergro und parking ga r ag e and n o larger than 45,000 sq ft. T h ank yo u, J annette Sco tt Alb erto W ay