401-409 Alberto Wy-- Addendum and Exhibit 25
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/10/2018
ITEM NO: 2
ADDENDUM
DATE: JANUARY 9, 2018
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-15-056, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT APPLICATION U-15-009, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EIR-16-001. PROJECT LOCATION: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY. PROPERTY
OWNER: CWA REALTY. CONTACT PERSON: SHANE ARTERS, LP
ACQUISITIONS, LLC.
REQUESTING APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH THREE EXISTING OFFICE
BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT A NEW, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH
UNDERGROUND PARKING ON PROPERTY ZONED CH. APN 529-23-018.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 25 includes additional public comment received between 11:01 a.m. Friday, January 5,
2018 and 11:00 a.m. Tuesday, January 9, 2018.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received under separate cover:
1. Draft Environmental Impact Report
2. Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated June 29, 2016
Previously received with December 13, 2017 Staff Report:
3. Location Map
4. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages)
5. Required CEQA Findings of Fact (24 pages)
6. Recommended Conditions of Approval (22 pages)
7. Excerpt of Town Council meeting Minutes from October 3, 2017 (three pages)
8. Town Council Resolution 2017-056 (three pages)
PAGE 2 OF 5
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
JANUARY 9, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\AlbertoWay401-409 1.10.18 remand cont ADD.docx 1/9/2018 11:20 AM
9. Letter of Justification/Project Description (23 pages), received November 7, 2017
10. Supplemental Applicant Information (four pages), received November 17, 2017
11. Architectural Consultant’s Report on Previous Plans (eight pages), received March 17, 2017
12. Project Information Sheet, prepared by the Parks and Public Works Department
13. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 8, 2017
14. Development Plans (37 pages), received November 7, 2017
Previously received with December 13, 2017 Addendum Report:
15. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Letter, dated November 30, 2017 (two pages)
16. TGKM Transportation Consultants, Inc. Letter, dated December 8, 2017 (one page)
Previously received with December 13, 2017 Addendum B Report:
17. Applicant’s Supplemental Response Letter, dated December 11, 2017
18. Applicant’s Geotechnical Consultant (ENGEO) Letter, dated December 12, 2017
19. Town’s Geotechnical Consultant (Amec Foster Wheeler) Letter, dated December 12, 2017
20. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Friday, December 8, 2017 and 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Previously received with December 13, 2017 Desk Item Report:
21. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, December 12, 2017 and 11:00 a.m.
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
Previously received with January 10, 2018 Staff Report:
22. Revised Conditions of Approval (22 pages)
23. Applicant response letter, received January 3, 2018 (94 pages)
24. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, December 12, 2017 and 11:00 a.m.
Friday, January 5, 2018
Received with this Addendum Report:
25. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Friday, January 5, 2018 and 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Distribution:
Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC, 535 Middlefield Road, Ste. 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Jennifer ~rmer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
sheny <sherry17s@prodigy.net>
Friday, January 05, 2018 11:30 AM
Jennifer Armer
Re: 401-405 Alberto Way Proposed Development
Hi Jennifer -I would like this to be given to the Planning
Commission Members prior to the public meeting about the
proposed development next week. Thank you.
Dear Members of the · Planning Committee,
As you know from my prior comments before you I am very
concerned about the amount of traffic that will be generated by the
proP,osed development here, especially in light of the fact that
Alberto Way is a dead end street with only one way in and one way
out, as well as the fact that the general area already has many
unresolved traffic problems. I feel Alberto · Way should be widened
to include a left turn lane into the property so that traffic doesn't
bottle-neck behind the employees and visitors waiting for them to
turn left into the property, and feel that this is the time to ask the
developer to provide the land needed to provide this lane. If this
isn't done the only alternative will be to use residential on-street
parkinQ and I feel that would be verv unfair to the residents. The --~
offer by the developer to allow residents to use their above ground
parking after hours restores some of the parking availability, but not
all of it, and certainly not the convenience of parking closer to your
home. Also, if doesn't address the residents on-street parking
needs during the day when the office lot is off limits. Are residents
to remove their cars from the lot by an early hour on weekdays -to
where? And what about parking for high school students returning
home when school ends at 2? Where are they to park until the
office building's tenants leave for the day? The same is true for
visitors to Alberto Way, and contractors hired by the residents to
provide various services during the day (gardening, home
EXHIBIT 25
maintenance, cleaning, plumbing, electrical, etc) needing access to
a place to park, as well as all of those people .that will avail
themselves of the shuttle and want to park their car on Alberto Way
in order ·to take it.
Thank you for your time.
Sherry_Burke
420 Alberto Way
los gatos Ca 95032
(408) 313-8471
To: Town of Los Gatos Jennifer T. Armer, ACIP
Associate Planner
Community Development Jlepartment
110 E Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030
EmaJll: Armer@LosGatosCA.gov
From: Harold Vitale, 415 Alberto Way Los Gatos CA 95032
Email: hsvitale@earthlink.net
Date: January 4, 201~
Dear Jennifer,
I am writing you to express my opinion that the proposed Building development
plan for 405 Alberto Way Los Gatos CA be rejected. The developer's proposal
includes several flaws. This letter only focuses on three of these flaws. Other flaw
descriptions have been or will be mailed to you by others.. Some will be presented
atthe next Open Planning meeting. Specifically this letter addresses the following
flaws: (a) The two level underground parking garage. (b) Congested traffic
ramifications. (c) Credibility of the Project Plan.
(a) Two Level Under Ground Parking Garage Risks.
Automobile Fire: Under the hood or within the cabin. Both pose the threat of
noxious/dangerous fumes to persons in the garage and in the automobile cabin
space. Overhead sprinklers will be practically useless, as the car by design, isolates
the engine compartment and cabin from sprinkler water. Garage ventilation
systems will remove some fumes escaping from the open bottom of an engine
compartment but not all.
Flooding of the garage space due to a geological disaster. People could be trapped if
the disaster knocks out electrical power for flood control pumps.
b)Congested Traffic Risks .
Long wait times. Vehicle Fender Benders due to frustrated drivers (road rage).
Delayed emergency medical treatment can be fatal. First Responder assistance will
be delayed in the event of fire or other disasters. Waiting a long time for a signal
light to indicate 'Walk" will be frustrating for pedestrians. This includes children
going to school and reqirning from school.
Trame Conditions on Alberto Way •
. Traffic Flow Leaving:
332 Vehicle Trips, 405 Garage to Alberto Way
250 Vehicle Trips, 485 Parking Lot to Alberto Way
Merge 405 with 485 Traffic at intersection of 405 In/Out Driveway & Alberto Way
Right Turn Lane for Alberto way Vehicles to enter Saratoga/LG Road
( c) Developer /Poor Credibility /Defiance
Look at his record:
Residents ask for a smaller size Building. Developer responds "NO".
Pagel
City Planning CommtssiDn delays decision on approval/rejection of project & invites
developer to return with a revised plan to address Commission & resident issues.
Commission advises Developer to reduce footprint by 30% in the revised Plan. The
Developer indicates he is unwilling to back down on that requirement.
The revised Plan addresses the issues. Many of the revisions/solutions spin off new
issues such as risks inherent with an underground garage.
Revised plan reduces the footprint by about 4%. So much for the developers
position of "no back down" on size.
Planning Commissions rejects the project. Developer appeals the decision. The
request then goes to the Town Council for final approval.
The Town Council hears "new information" from the Developer. Included as "new
information" is a further reduction in building foot print of -10% and a
commitment by the developer to donate sufficient property to build a right hand
turn lane at the corner of Saratoga Road and Alberto Way with the thought of easing
some of the exiting traffic.. This turn lane requires State approval .
My purpose in reviewing these events is to point out what I consider poor credibility
on the part of the Developer i.e. not a person of their word. The "new information" to
the Town Council in my opinion, was a fascia in an attempt to sway the decision to
be in favor of the developer. The new information was trivia in nature.. The turn
lane is not trivia but needs the backing of the proper State Authorities, CALTRAN.
The Developer's antics have created anxiety for many of the neighborhood
residents. They are worried that if the project is approved, there will be other
burdens placed in their paths by this developer. Based on his lack of credilbility.
Traffic Flow:
Traffic flow In/Out of Alberto Way would be unacceptable. Please refer to the
document I submitted to your office January 2, 2018.
Several suggestions have been discussed in the open planning hearings and would
only result in minor improvements.
This heavy traffic flow also creates potential accidents at the right hand turn from
Alberto way to Saratoga LG Rd. This situation is due to the U TURN signal which is
heavily used for cars to enter the North bound ramp to Highway 17.
Page 2
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ellen McCullough <ellenmdpt@gmail.com>
Friday, January 05, 2018 6:38 PM
Jennifer Armer
Objection to the Alberto Way development project.
I own a home on 100 Cuesta de Los Gatos Way which is on the corner of Alberto Way and Cuesta de Los Gatos.
I have. been an owner since 2005 and have steadily seen the traffic on Alberto increase and the parking become a
nightmare.
I am especially concerned about the intersection at Alberto and Hwy 9. I was crossing Hwy 9 recently and as I stepped
out onto the crosswalk, a driver in a suburban ran the red light only inches away from me. She was distracted but also I
noticed as one comes down the hill in a car from LG Blvd, the sun can be blinding and the lights at Alberto and Hwy 9 are
difficult to see. Adding a huge complex with so many more people using this intersection would be an absolute disaste r.
I am happy to be here to write this email...
Thank you,
Ellen McCullough
Jennifer Armer
From: CONNIE [mailto :cgdailey@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 3:33 PM
To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: RE; 401 -409 Alberto Way
Public Hearing/Planning Commission January 10, 2018
Architecture and Site Application 5-15-056
I'm sure the town of Los Gatos has laws governing litter about
construction sites and elsewhere. The project on Alberto Way
and Hwy 9 must be in violation of litter laws on its
premises. Yellow caution ribbons are around trees, posts,
fences, landscaping and the parking lot. Traffic cones are
scattered abqut the property, the netting showing the location
and height of the project is in disarray, droops is blown about by
the wind and in general makes our neighborhood look like a ·
homeless camp and · devalues our property.
If this is an example of what this project will look like during
construction that is estimated to last several years, then our
neighborhood's serenity is in deep trouble and the town of Los
Gatos must do something to prevent this outrage.
George S. Dailey
441 Alberto Way #111
Los Gatos, CA 95032
408-827-4956
cgdailey@comcast.net
To: Planning Commission
From: Los Gatos Commons Committee on Alberto Way Development and the Board of Directors
Date: January 9, 2017
We have read the applicant's letter of January 3, 2017 and w ish to comment on some of the claims
made. We do not believe the applicant has demonstrated that it is not feasible to reduce the size of the
proposed building below 74,260 sq. ft . We feel that, given a little more time, we could produce
docu.mented research to show the size of Class A buildings in the San Jose area and in what kinds of
neighborhoods they are located. This research could allow the applicant's claims to be objectively
evaluated.
Thank you for attention to our comments.
Sincerely,
~?::::!::::ws Comrrwns
APPLICANT'S CLAIMS RESPONSE/CORRECTION
All the comments that the Planning Commission Commenters have continually pointed to
received at Its Dec. 13, 2017 meeting are the same inconsistencies with General Plan and COG, but
comments that the commenters submitted in their position on the project has changed.
August 2016, March 2017, April 2017, May 2017, Originally, neighbors wanted a 31,000 sq . ft.
Sept. 2017, & Oct. 2017. building, surface parking, no loss of mountain
views. Currently, they accept a 62,000 sq. ft.
building, one level underground garage,
preservation of views from north corridor but not
south.
Petition from all 4 condo organizations,
8/18/2016: scale and design to look and feel like
Los Gatos, a small town, with views of Santa Cruz
mountains; parking above ground; analysis of
traffic impact that reflects reality.
Petition from all 4 condo organizations, 4/6/2017:
reduce size below 83,000 sq. ft.; protection of
views; surface parking; new analysis of traffic
impact that includes impact of pending projects.
Neighbors support Planning Commission's denial
of the project, Town Council appeal hearing,
9/13/2017: Commission did not consider only one
GP and one COG policy; rather they found
inconsistencies with two LU and two COG policies
and pointed to inconsistencies with 25 additional
GP policies not identified by number. The finding
was not arbitrary because it addressed problems
of fit with neighborhood, views of the hills, traffic
congestion; property damage from 2 level garage,
and privacy issues. Fi ndings about size, density,
views, street access, and senior issues were
objective. The applicant's claim that he achieved
80-90% of what the Commission directed was
misleading: he made changes but did not actually
resolve the problems. The applicant argued that
the neighbors wanted no development on the site,
but neighborhood representatives on 8/18/2016
advocated for the "Existing Square Footage"
Alternative of 31,000 sq. ft. {also additional
refutations in the neighbors' letter of9/13).)
Petition from Alberto Way neighborhood
organizations, supported by Boards, 12/6/2017:
reduce size to 62,000 sq. ft. or less, one level
garage, protect mountain view from north
corridor.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM RESPONSE/CORR ECTION
Question: Why is 74,260 sq. ft. the minimum size
for a Class A office?
This is the arecommended size» in DEIR. The DEIR does not recommend either Alternative;
rather, it compares the relative merits of two I alternatives. 5:8-10; 6: 3-12
A smaller building with more surface parking Then why du the other designs include surface I
would not .permit secured parking. parking?
A smaller building cannot accommodate the What amenities exactly? We have not heard what
amenities. tenants would expect. kind of company the applicant hopes to attract
and what indoor amenities he will provide. At
Alberto Oaks (56,000 sq. ft.) there are conference
rooms, full kitchens, showers, basketball court,
and possibly other amenities.
In Silicon Valley 95% of Class A offices provide floor The source for this statement is G. van Thaden: is
plates of 35,000-40,000 sq . ft. he a friend or business associate of the applicant?
Where are these Class A offices located? Any
adjacent to residential developments? Where are
the 5%-are they in small towns like Los Gatos?
A building Jess than 74,260 sq. ft. would be Architect Kirby (Planning Commission meeting,
untenable from a leasing marketability standpoint. 12/13/17, 2:20) said that a Nftoor plate of 35,000 is
a good target, considered the minimum in that
market. • . It is easier to ... a little more difficult
marketing below that.» So, It can be marketed
perhaps with a little more work. Or, perhaps there
is a tenant out there who does not need a Class A
building this large.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM RESPONSE/CORRECTION
Question: What are the options for a single level
underground parking garage or why would it not
be possible?
No options for a single level Please ask the applicant: If a single level garage
with some surface parking is assumed, how large a
building would that accommodate? The
applicant's first design called for a garage footprint
of 78,100 sq. ft. for 192 cars, 7 surface spaces, and
open space. The sq. ft. of a 2.15 acre lot is
109,000.
A single level for a 74,260 sq . ft. building is not If the size of the building is reduced, a single level
feasible. We need 298 spaces less 38 surface garage works (e.g., for a building 56,000 or 62,000
spaces . The lot will not hold a single level garage sq. ft.)
for 260 cars.
To reduce to a 56-62,000 sq. ft. building for a We have heard the feasibility argument before.
single level garage would make the project The Redesign 3 saves millions by reducing the size
economically infeasible. of the building/garage. A further reduction would
save more money. Why doesn't the applicant
propose a number that he thinks COULD work with
the single level garage plus surface parking?
The staging area would be lost. If true, we neighbors accept the tradeoff. Surely
there are options.
If we eliminate the amenity area on the north OK, but if the setback is 80 ft . to protect our view
there is room for only a single row of cars. of the north corridor, there Is more room.
Redesign 3 already reduces the impacts to the As shown in our photos and on-site viewing, the
residents along the north property boundary, so pre-project view will be ruined (largely blocked) by
no need for a setback of 80 ft . Mr. Kirby said in Redesign 3. The redesign makes the view more
the Dec. 13 Planning Commission meeting (3:46) generous than redesign 2 but not more
that Redesign 3 improves the view, makes it "more "generousn than our pre-project v iew; it is
generous'' on the north side; the neighbors can ridiculous to think a view of a slim bit of earth over
see mountains over the top of the buildings, the tops of buildings compensates for the loss of a
anyway; the Redesign will improve the view by view of hillsides and a peak, a distant panorama.
removing the existing building. The existing building does not block the· view of
the mountains; the Caltran trees block some of the
lower hillside.
APPLICANT'S CLAIMS RESPONSE/CORRECTION
Questions about Design of Parking Garage
Dr. Peter Geissler and neighborhood residents Residents are focused on damage to their
erroneously suggest 2 level garage would pose property, not safety of tenants at 405-that is the
safety concerns for adjacent residences developer's responsibility.
ENGEO's conclusions and recommendations have · Experts can make mistakes, as the residents of
been approved by experts. I Millennium Tower know. ENGEO has been on the
defensive ever since they failed to assess the
impact of excavatio.n on neighboring properties for
the DEIR.
Monitoring of excavation area during construction Without monitoring and other safeguards beyond
can prevent differential settlement to offsite the excavation site1 we do not think our property is
properties. No need for post--construction safe during construction. Note Palo Alto
monitoring. regulations.
The town's motivation for making the garage one Dr. Geissler did not claim it is impossible to design
level is based on erroneous claims by Dr. Geissler such a garage; he criticized ENGEO's analysis.
that it is impossible to design a below grade garage ENGEO's own analysis (Appendix C, DEIR) indicates
that will not leak or flood. When properly that there will be differential foundation
designed an underground garage will not leak or settlement (less than Dr. Geissler calculated). In
flood and will not cause subsidence on adjacent defending against Dr. Gelssler's analysis, ENGEO
property. For example, Netflix has a 2 level admitted that there was Nlow risk" of property
underground garage in Los Gatos. damage to neighboring properties. We know that
engineering errors occur and that we would be
financially devastated if our property is damaged
and that we would have Uttle hope of successfully
suing to recover damages . Dr. Geissler tells us that
a one story garage will not be a problem.
Coincidentally, a one story garage will be adequate
for the size building that we believe is suitable for
Alberto Way. Netflix is not on a flood plain and is
on a much higher elevation than the 405 site.
Dr. Geissf P.r I~ 1_mderqualified. Geissler Engineering was founded in 1973. It
specializes in design of earthquake-resistant
buildings, foundation engineering and seismic
retrofit of existing buildings. Dr. Geissler Is a
court-appointed expert in the field of soil
subsidence, differential foundation settlement1
property drainage, hydrology, storm water
facilities and shoring systems used for the
protection of adjoining properties.
Jan.9,2017
Planning Commission
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos CA 95030
RE: 401-409 Alberto Way project
Dear Commissioners,
As I read through the letter (Jan.3, 2018} written by the lawyers
representing the developers for the Alberto Way project, the
following questions emerge:
Wiii there be room for an EMR vehicle to tum and navigate safely
on a densely packed street due to the elimination of eight public
parking spaces?
Wll I there be specific spaces for residents in surface parking on
the project considering the overflow from the restaurant, medical
office, motel, and yet unknown number of nighttime workers?
According to the definition of Class A bulldlngs included In the
letter, food courts, cafes, and coff-shops could be part of the
amenities offered. Why would an office worker consistently take
time off a small lunch break to get on a 45 min round trip shuttle
to ·seek servi~es already provided.?
What is the number of employees using the building? Wiii they
be doing spllt shifts? If so, wlll they be required to park down
below grade to make room for residents and overflow restaurant
parking?
Wh•t is square footage for a building that could approprlately
house the cars for that building on a one level garage? This is
KEY and has not been answered!
If the main objective according to the letter is to provide a Class
A building, la the developer aware that 475 • 485 Alberto Oaks is
doing well with class A 28,000 sq. foot floor plates? The size of
the floor plate Is not part of the definition of Class A bullding.
During the proposed three day festival events that the proposed
development will be providing free shuttle service, wll8 ~he
developer be opening up his entire parking structure to the public
so as not to overburden the available street parking for
residents?
Since there is no way to predict how long it will take for the
groundwater to equalize and soil settlement to occur, why
wouldn't It be reasonable to monitor the excavation area during
and post construction at least a year or two considering the
davelapara' own engineers called tha possibility of cracking
pipes at low risk but would not say NO RISK ?
Thank you for considering these questions. Some of th•• have
been asked of the developer in the past but have not been
answered.
Sincerely,
Marllyn Basham
Resident of Los Gatos Common
Busiiiess owner since 1982
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank