401-409 Alberto Wy- Staff Report and Exhibits 22-24
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
DATE: JANUARY 5, 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:
The Planning Commission considered the applications on December 13, 2017. The applications
were continued due to the lateness of the hour, and to give the applicant the opportunity to
provide additional information in response to commissioner requests. The requests from the
commissioners included the following:
• Provide the width, length, and area of land being dedicated to the Town for street
widening
• Provide a construction management plan that includes measures to help neighbors feel
more comfortable with excavation, dewatering, and potential impacts to through traffic
on Alberto Way
• What makes an office space “Class A”?
• Provide details for the CAT shuttle
• Provide possible options to work toward a single level of underground parking.
The Applicant has provided a letter (Exhibit 23) in response to the requests received from the
commissioners at the meeting on December 13, 2017.
PAGE 2 OF 5
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
JANUARY 5, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\AlbertoWay401-409 1.10.18 remand cont.docx 1/5/2018 2:25 PM
As a result of the discussion on December 13, 2017, staff has revised conditions 66 and 117,
prepared new conditions 8, 12, 81, 89, 125, and deleted an old condition 107. Revised
Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 22) have been prepared, and the changes are summarized
below.
The following conditions were added to memorialize items that the Planning Commissioners
requested and the applicant agreed to during the hearing:
8. LEED CERTIFICATION: Prior to issuance of building permits and prior to final
occupancy, the applicant shall provide documentation showing progress towards LEED
Gold certification.
12. PUBLIC SHUTTLE: Shuttle service shall be provided and shall meet the following
minimum conditions:
a. Shuttle service shall be available for use by office tenants, visitors, and members
of the Los Gatos Community.
b. Shuttle capacity shall be a minimum of 28 passengers.
c. Shuttle shall be provided free of charge to users.
d. Shuttle shall be active Monday – Friday, from 10:30 am to 3:30 pm.
e. Shuttle service shall be provided for at least three one-day public events each
year.
f. Shuttle frequency shall be at least once per hour, and a schedule shall be posted.
g. Shuttle route shall generally be in a loop starting at 405 Alberto Way, along E.
Main Street in front of Los Gatos High School, and through downtown, and shall
include stops at Los Gatos High School, at least one downtown public parking lot,
and at least one drug store and/or grocery store, and then returning to 405
Alberto Way.
81. SETTLEMENT MONITORING AND MITIGATION PLAN: The Applicant shall prepare and
implement a Settlement Monitoring and Mitigation Plan which specifies monitoring
and mitigation measures to avoid damage to the adjacent residential community
(foundations, utilities, etc.) as a result of the project’s subterranean excavation,
dewatering and subsequent construction activities, and include any supplemental
geotechnical and hydrologic plans and studies that are needed for the development of
said plan. Approved monitoring protocols shall be reviewed and approved by the
Town Engineer and in place prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the
project.
89. BICYCLE FACILITIES: The Applicant shall install bike lanes and bike boxes in directions
of improved streets and intersections as directed by the Town Engineer. The
improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of
Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
PAGE 3 OF 5
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
JANUARY 5, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\AlbertoWay401-409 1.10.18 remand cont.docx 1/5/2018 2:25 PM
The following conditions were added or modified to provide additional certainty to confirm that
work will be completed as expected:
66. GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work
except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of The Code of the Town of Los
Gatos (Grading Ordinance). The grading permit application (with grading plans) shall
be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department
located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage,
retaining wall location(s), driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading
plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious
areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the
grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading
permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). Prior to Engineering signing off
and closing out on the issued grading permit, the Developer’s soils engineer shall
verify, with a stamped and signed letter, that the grading activities were completed
per plans and per the requirements as noted in the soils report. A separate building
permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street, is needed for grading
within the building footprint.
117. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET: Prior to the issuance of any permits, the
Applicant shall submit a construction management plan sheet (full-size) within the
plan set that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control
Plan, Project Schedule, Truck Haul Route and Management Plan, Construction Phasing
Plan, site security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, materials
storage area(s), construction trailer(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse
location(s). Prior to receiving building, demolition, or grading permit issuance, a draft
of this plan shall be submitted for review by the Town. Please refer to the Town’s
Construction Management Plan Guidelines document for additional information.
125. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The Developer shall enter into a Landscape
Maintenance Agreement with the Town of Los Gatos in which the Developer agrees to
maintain the vegetated areas along the project’s Alberto Way and Los Gatos-Saratoga
Road frontages located within the public right-of-way. The agreement must be
completed and accepted by the Town Attorney prior to the issuance of any permits.
The following condition was deleted because condition 110 prohibits construction vehicle
parking on the public street:
107. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture’s rated gross
vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on
the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior to
approval from the Town Engineer.
PAGE 4 OF 5
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
JANUARY 5, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\AlbertoWay401-409 1.10.18 remand cont.docx 1/5/2018 2:25 PM
Exhibit 24 includes additional public comment received between 11:01 a.m. Wednesday,
December 13, 2017 and 11:00 a.m. Friday, January 5, 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)
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
Received with this Staff Report:
22. Revised Conditions of Approval (22 pages)
23. Applicant response letter, received January 3, 2018 (94 pages)
PAGE 5 OF 5
SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001
JANUARY 5, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\AlbertoWay401-409 1.10.18 remand cont.docx 1/5/2018 2:25 PM
24. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, December 12, 2017 and 11:00 a.m.
Friday, January 5, 2018
Distribution:
Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC, 535 Middlefield Road, Ste. 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
1
PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
401-409 Alberto Way
Architecture and Site Application S-15-056
Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009
Environmental Impact Report EIR-16-001
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.
APPLICANT: Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC
PROPERTY OWNER: CWA Realty
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of
approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any changes or
modifications to the approved plans and/or business operation shall be approved by the
Community Development Director, DRC or the Planning Commission depending on the
scope of the changes.
2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to
Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested.
3. SIGN PERMIT: A Sign Permit from the Los Gatos Community Development Department
must be obtained prior to any changes to existing signs or installation of new signs.
4. CERTIFICATE OF USE AND OCCUPANCY: A Certificate of Use and Occupancy from the Los
Gatos Community Development Department must be obtained prior to commencement
of use.
5. BUSINESS LICENSE: A business license from the Town of Los Gatos Finance Department
must be obtained prior to the commencement of any new or change of use.
6. LAPSE FOR DISCONTINUANCE: If the activity for which the Conditional Use Permit has
been granted is discontinued for a period of one (1) year, the approval lapses pursuant to
Section 29.20.340 of the Zoning Ordinance.
7. VIEW GLASS: View glass, or comparable product, shall be used in all second floor windows
on the northern facing façade
8. LEED CERTIFICATION: Prior to issuance of building permits and prior to final occupancy,
the applicant shall provide documentation showing progress towards LEED Gold
certification.
9. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down
directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjac ent properties. No flood lights
shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security.
EXHIBIT 22
2
10. OPEN SPACE ACCESS: The open space shown in the development plans shall be made
available for use by the public.
11. SURFACE PARKING ACCESS: The surface parking spaces shown in the development plans
shall be made available for use by the public outside of the stated normal business hours
of 7 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday.
12. PUBLIC SHUTTLE: Shuttle service shall be provided and shall meet the following minimum
conditions:
a. Shuttle service shall be available for use by office tenants, visitors, and members of
the Los Gatos Community.
b. Shuttle capacity shall be a minimum of 28 passengers.
c. Shuttle shall be provided free of charge to users.
d. Shuttle shall be active Monday – Friday, from 10:30 am to 3:30 pm.
e. Shuttle service shall be provided for at least three one-day public events each year.
f. Shuttle frequency shall be at least once per hour, and a schedule shall be posted.
g. Shuttle route shall generally be in a loop starting at 405 Alberto Way, along E. Main
Street in front of Los Gatos High School, and through downtown, and shall include
stops at Los Gatos High School, at least one downtown public parking lot, and at least
one drug store and/or grocery store, and then returning to 405 Alberto Way.
13. GENERAL: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be
planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site.
14. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be
removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
15. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all
recommendations made by Deborah Ellis, identified in the Arborist’s report dated
September 26, 2015, on file in the Community Development Department. A Compliance
Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the building permit
application detailing how the recommendations have or will be addressed. These
recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior
to issuance of a building permit where applicable.
16. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing and other protection measures shall be placed at
the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall
remain through all phases of construction. Refer to tree fencing requirements and other
protection measures identified in the Arborist Reports prepared by Deborah Ellis dated
September 26, 2015, on file in the Community Development Department. Include a tree
protection plan with the construction plans.
17. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties.
18. WATER EFFECIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet the
Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the current fee schedule
adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are
submitted for review.
19. LANDSCAPING: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy all landscaped must be
complete.
3
20. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of
approval of the Architecture & Site application.
21. AIR QUALITY 1: Final plans for the proposed buildings on the site shall be amended to
include a requirement for low NOX heating systems to be installed in new buildings on the
site.
22. AIR QUALITY 2: Final plans shall be amended to include a requirement for the installation
of at least four electric charging stations prior to occupancy, with parking restricted to
electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles, and at least one handicapped space shall be provided
with access to a charging station.
23. AIR QUALITY 3: The project contractor shall implement basic dust control measures at all
on-site and off-site locations where grading or excavation takes place. The project
contractor shall implement additional dust control measures at all on-site and off-site
locations where grading or excavation takes place within 200 feet of residential
properties.
Basic dust control measures:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day;
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered;
c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited;
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph;
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used; and
f. The project contractor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator” responsible for
responding to any local complaints regarding dust complaints. The project contractor
will post a publicly visible sign with a contact telephone number for the disturbance
coordinator. The disturbance coordinator shall respond and take correction action for
any complaint received with 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
g. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average
wind speeds exceed 20 mph;
h. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in
disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is
established; and
i. Unpaved roads shall be treated with a three to six inch compacted layer of wood chips,
mulch, or gravel.
24. BIOLOGY 1: If noise generation, ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other
construction activities begin during the nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), or if
construction activities are suspended for at least two weeks and recommence during the
nesting bird season, then the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct
a pre-construction survey for nesting birds. The survey shall be performed within suitable
4
nesting habitat areas on and adjacent to the site to ensure that no active nests would be
disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be conducted no more than
two weeks prior to the initiation of disturbance/construction activities. A report
documenting survey results and plan for active bird nest avoidance (if needed) shall be
completed by the qualified biologist and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos for review
and approval prior to disturbance and/or construction activities.
If no active bird nests are detected during the survey, then project activities can proceed
as scheduled. However, if an active bird nest of a native species is detected during the
survey, then a plan for bird nest avoidance shall be prepared to determine and clearly
delineate an appropriately-sized, temporary protective buffer area around each active
nest, depending on the nesting bird species, existing site conditions, and type of proposed
disturbance and/or construction activities. The protective buffer area around an active
bird nest is typically 75-250 feet, determined at the discretion of the qualified biologist
and in compliance with applicable project permits.
To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an active bird nest will occur, no disturbance
and/or construction activities shall occur within the protective buffer area(s) until the
juvenile birds have fledged (left the nest), and there is no evidence of a second attempt at
nesting, as determined by the qualified biologist.
25. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project’s grading
plan shall indicate the requirement for a qualified archaeologist to be present at all times
during grading and excavation activities on the project site. If archaeological resources are
uncovered, work will not continue until the resources have been removed and/or
recorded. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department shall be
responsible for ensuring the implementation of these mitigation measures. Costs shall be
the responsibility of the developer(s).
26. CULTURAL RESOURCES 2: If human remains are found during construction activities, no
further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the archeological monitor and the
coroner of Santa Clara County are contacted. If it is determined that the remains are
Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or
persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native
American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person
responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public
Resources Code section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall
rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate
dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native
American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the
descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his
authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the
5
mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures
acceptable to the landowner.
The Planning Division of the Community Development Department shall be responsible
for ensuring the implementation of these mitigation measures. Costs shall be the
responsibility of the developer(s).
27. GEOLOGY & SOILS 1: Prior to the approval of building permits for the project site, the
applicant shall be responsible for demonstrating to the approval of the Building Official
that proposed design plans are in conformance with all current California Building Code
standards and that all design measures and site preparation recommendations as
suggested in the project’s geotechnical exploration report prepared by ENGEO (2015)
have been incorporated into the project’s final design
28. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1: Prior to any demolition activities on the project
site, an asbestos and lead-based paint survey shall be performed to determine if any
additional waste removal activities would be required. The selected project contractor
shall implement all site specific measures and recommendations identified within the
site’s asbestos and lead-based survey. Compliance with the asbestos and lead-based paint
survey during site demolition activities shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Town Engineer.
29. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC 1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction
of the proposed project on the site, the applicant shall enter into a construction
agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to implement improvements for the restriping of
Alberto Way to include a dedicated right-turn lane and a shared left-through lane. Costs
for these improvements will be determined by the Town’s traffic consultant.
30. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC 2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction
of the proposed project on the site, the applicant shall enter into a construction
agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to provide a bike box on Alberto Way at the
intersection with Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, as well as the detached sidewalks with a
landscape buffer on Alberto Way along the project site frontage, and on the north side of
Los Gatos-Saratoga Road between Alberto Way and the State Route 17 northbound on-
ramp.
31. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC 3: Off-site improvement plans shall show that parking on
southbound Alberto Way between the two project driveways shall be prohibited to
ensure sight distance is not obscured.
32. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that
any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third
party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a
condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set
forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney.
33. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the
building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
6
Building Division
34. PERMITS REQUIRED: A separate Building Permit will be required for the two level Parking
Garage podium structure and a separate Building Permit shall be required for each
office/commercial building. Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical, and
plumbing work as necessary.
35. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full on the
second sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared
and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of
Approval will be addressed.
36. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, size 24” x 36” minimum, 30” x 42”
maximum.
37. BUILDING & SUITE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new building addresses to the Building
Division prior to submitting for the building permit application process.
38. SOILS REPORT: A soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be su bmitted
with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil
engineer specializing in soils mechanics.
39. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS: Obtain Building Department Demolition Applications and
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Applications from the Building Department
Service Counter. Once the Demolition Forms have been completed, all signatures
obtained, and written verification from PG&E that all utilities have been disconnected,
return the completed Forms to the Building Department Service Counter with the Air
District’s J# Certificate(s), PG&E verification, and three (3) sets of Site Plans showing all
existing structures, existing utility service lines such as water, sewer, and PG&E. No
demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a Permit from the Town.
40. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed
four (4) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent
property or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a
California licensed engineer and shall conform to Cal/OSHA regulations.
41. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land
surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection.
This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils
report and that the building pad elevations and on -site retaining wall locations and
elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical
controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for
the following items:
a. Building pad elevation
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation corner locations
d. Retaining Walls
42. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms
must be blue-lined (sticky-backed) onto a sheet of the plans.
43. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary
sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the
7
plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los
Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on
drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12 -inches above the
elevation of the next upstream manhole.
44. FIRE ZONE: This project will require Class A Roof Assemblies.
45. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the
architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be
submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The
Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out, signed by all requested
parties, and be blue-lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are
available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at
www.losgatosca.gov/building
46. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara
County Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (or Clean Bay Sheet
24x36) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second or third page. The specification
sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose
Blue Print for a fee.
47. NPDES-C.3 DATA FORMS: Copies of the NPDES C.3 Data Forms (updated based on the final
construction drawings) must be blue-lined in full onto the Plans. In the event that this
data differs significantly from any Planning approvals, the Town may require
recertification of the project’s storm water treatment facilities prior to release of the
Building Permit.
48. GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS: This project must, at a minimum, be in compliance with
the Nonresidential Mandatory Measures of the current California Green Building
Standards Code (CGBSC) and all subsequent Amendments.
a. Bicycle Parking: Per CGBSC Section 5.106.4.1.1 provide twenty (20) permanently
anchored bicycle racks (= 5% of motorized vehicle parking) for short-term bicycle
parking or ten (10) two-bike capacity racks. Per CGBSC Section 5.106.4.2 provide
secure bicycle lockers for twenty (20) bicycles (= 5% of motorized vehicle parking).
Note: Providing showers, changing rooms, and clothes lockers in each building is a
voluntary amenity to be considered.
b. Designated Parking: Per CGBSC Section 5.106.5.2 provide designated parking for any
combination of low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in
Table 5.106.5.2 which equals 8% of the proposed parking or a minimum of 32 spaces.
c. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: Per CGBSC Section 5.106.5.3, during construction
provide electric vehicle supply equipment and electrical components as listed to
facilitate the future installation of (or provide for during construction) electric vehicle
charging stations. Per CGBSC Table 5.106.5.3.3, 12 electric vehicle charging stations
spaces are required for this project or 3% of the total parking spaces.
49. SITE ACCESSIBILITY: At least one accessible route within the boundary of the site shall be
provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking and accessible passenger
loading zones and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance that they
serve. The accessible route shall, to the maximum extent feasible, coincide with the route
for the general public. At least one accessible route shall connect all accessible buildings,
8
facilities, elements and spaces that are on the same site. If access is provided for
pedestrians from a pedestrian tunnel or elevated walkway, entrances to the buildings
from each tunnel or walkway must be accessible.
50. ACCESSIBLE PARKING: The parking lots, as well as the parking structure , where parking is
provided for the public as clients, guests or employees, shall provide handicap accessible
parking. Accessible parking spaces serving a particular building shall be located on the
shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessible entrance. In
buildings with multiple accessible entrances with adjacent parking, accessible parking
spaces shall be dispersed and located closest to the accessible entrances.
51. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies
approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development/Planning Division: Jennifer Armer at (408) 399-5706
b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: Mike Weisz at 395-5340
c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
e. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (415) 771-6000
f. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school
district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit
issuance.
52. ADVISORY COMMENTS:
a. Allowable Area calculations shall be provided for each building per California Building
Code Chapter 5.
b. Per California Building Code Section 1027.5 Exit Discharge Access to a public way, from
the Shared Courtyard Amenity Area, it appears that there will be difficulty providing a
direct and unobstructed access to the public way or the ability to provide a safe
dispersal area in compliance with the Exception requirements.
c. For the balconies, the occupant load will be calculated at 15 square feet per occupant.
Please consider dividing the balconies with permanent railings to limit the balcony
areas to less than 750 square feet in order to avoid the requirement for two compliant
exits in anticipation of unknown future tenant improvement layouts.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
53. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall
conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right -of-way shall be
kept clear of all job-related mud, silt, concrete, dirt and other construction debris at the
end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The
storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed
unless an encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division of the Parks and
Public Works Department. The Developer's representative in charge shall be at the job
site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right -of-way according to this
9
condition may result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders
and the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense.
54. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of
approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and
approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or
conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
55. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction
Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. It is the
responsibility of the Developer to obtain any necessary encroachment permits from
affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited to, Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E), AT&T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). Copies of any approvals or permits must be submitted to the
Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to releasing
any permit.
56. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: The property owner shall provide proof of insurance to
the Town on a yearly basis. In addition to general coverage, the policy must cover all
elements encroaching into the Town’s right-of-way.
57. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Developer or their representative shall notify the
Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining
to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right -of-way.
Failure to do so will result in penalties and rejection of work that went on without
inspection.
58. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer shall repair or replace all
existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because
of the Developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic
pavement markings, etc., shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better
than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names,
graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed
and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be
allowed therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the
direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24
Disabled Access provisions. The Developer shall request a walk-through with the
Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing
conditions.
59. PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (INDEMNITY AGREEMENT): The
property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for all existing and proposed
private improvements within the Town’s right-of-way. The Owner shall be solely
responsible for maintaining the improvements in a good and safe condition at all times
and shall indemnify the Town of Los Gatos. The agreement must be completed and
accepted by the Director of Parks and Public Works, and subsequently recorded by the
Town Clerk at the Santa Clara County Office of the Clerk-Recorder, prior to the issuance of
any permits. Please note that this process may take approximately six to eight (6-8)
weeks.
10
60. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job
site at all times during construction.
61. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street
and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations
on works hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe
manner may be required.
62. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan review
at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department.
63. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance
of any permits.
64. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR: The Developer shall fund a full time public works inspector,
selected by the Town of Los Gatos, for the duration of the grading operations. The
Applicant will be charged on a time and materials basis. A deposit for the full amount, to
be estimated by the Town based on the Contractor’s approved schedule, shall be paid
prior to issuance of the demolition permit.
65. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered
Professional Engineer in the State of California, and submitted to the Town Engineer for
review and approval. Additionally, any post-project traffic or parking counts, or other
studies imposed by the Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the
Applicant.
66. GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work
except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of The Code of the Town of Los Gatos
(Grading Ordinance). The grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to
the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles
Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location(s),
driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork
quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically
allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued
concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building
footprint(s). Prior to Engineering signing off and closing out on the issued grading permit,
the Developer’s soils engineer shall verify, with a stamped and signed letter, that the
grading activities were completed per plans and per the requirements as noted in the soils
report. A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street,
is needed for grading within the building footprint.
67. DRIVEWAY: The driveway conforms to existing pavement on Alberto Way shall be
constructed in a manner such that the existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed.
68. DRAINAGE STUDY: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, a drainage study of the
project evidencing that the proposed drainage patterns will not overload the existing
storm drain facilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Town Engineer.
69. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to the issuance of any grading/improvement permits,
whichever comes first, the Applicant shall: a) design provisions for surface drainage; and
b) design all necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal
for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff; and c) provide a recorded copy of any
required easements to the Town.
11
70. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to
the issuance of a grading permit/building permit.
71. SURVEYING CONTROLS: Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a
licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the
following items:
a. Retaining wall: top of wall elevations and locations.
b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes.
72. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement of
any site work, the general contractor shall:
a. Along with the project applicant, attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town
Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site
maintenance and other construction matters;
b. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of
approval and will make certain that all project sub -contractors have read and
understand them as well prior to commencing any work, and that a copy of the
project conditions of approval will be posted on-site at all times during construction.
73. ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: The Applicant shall make accommodations within
their construction documents to provide sufficient area for construction staging area(s),
materials storage area(s), construction trailer(s), and activities and materials pertaining to
construction staging, phasing, sequencing and shoring to occur to the greatest extent
possible within the boundary of the subject property. A plan for the layout of these items
shall be prepared as a part of the construction management plan for review and approval
by the Town prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits.
74. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E. Main
Street, may be required for site retaining walls. Walls are not reviewed or approved by the
Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan review
process.
75. DEDICATIONS: The following shall be dedicated by separate instrument. The dedication
shall be recorded before any permits are issued:
a. Alberto Way: Right-of-way within Alberto Way for public street purposes as delineated
on the plans prepared by Kier & Wright shall be dedicated in fee.
b. Public Service Easement (PSE): Five (5) feet wide, along the Alberto Way frontage.
76. SOILS REPORT: One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the
application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site
grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, and erosion control. The
reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance
with Section 6735 of the California Business and Prof essions Code.
77. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE: A geotechnical investigation shall be
conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub -surface conditions at the site
and to determine the potential for surface fault rupture on the site. The geotechnical
study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations,
retaining walls, concrete slab-on-grade construction, excavation, drainage, on-site utility
trenching and pavement sections. All recommendations of the investigation shall be
incorporated into project plans.
12
78. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicant’s engineers shall prepare
and submit a design-level geotechnical/geological investigation for review and approval
by the Town. The Applicant’s soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage
plans to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and site
drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments.
Approval of the Applicant’s soils engineer shall then be conveyed to the Town either by
letter or by signing the plans.
79. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all excavations and
grading shall be inspected by the Applicant’s soils engineer prior to placement of concrete
and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the
design-level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in the
recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction
observation and testing shall be documented in an “as-built” letter/report prepared by
the Applicant’s soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any
occupancy permit is granted.
80. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological
recommendations contained in the project’s design -level geotechnical/geological
investigation as prepared by the Applicant’s engineer(s), and any subsequently required
report or addendum. Subsequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review by the
Town’s consultant and costs shall be borne by the Applicant.
81. SETTLEMENT MONITORING AND MITIGATION PLAN: The Applicant shall prepare and
implement a Settlement Monitoring and Mitigation Plan which specifies monitoring and
mitigation measures to avoid damage to the adjacent residential community
(foundations, utilities, etc.) as a result of the project’s subterranean excavation,
dewatering and subsequent construction activities, and include any supplemental
geotechnical and hydrologic plans and studies that are needed for the development of
said plan. Approved monitoring protocols shall be reviewed and approved by the Town
Engineer and in place prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the project.
82. IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT: The Applicant shall enter into an agreement to construct
public improvements that are part of the development in a form acceptable to the Town
in the amount of 100% (performance) and 100% (labor and materials) prior to issuance of
any permit. The Applicant shall provide two (2) copies of documents verifying the cost of
the public improvements to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division of the Parks and
Public Works Department. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the
Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of
any permit.
83. JOINT TRENCH PLANS: Joint trench plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town
prior to recordation of a map. The joint trench plans shall include street and/or site
lighting and associated photometrics. A letter shall be provided by PG&E stating that
public street light billing will by Rule LS2A, and that private lights shall be metered with
billing to the homeowners association. Pole numbers, assigned b y PG&E, shall be clearly
delineated on the plans.
84. WATER DESIGN: Water plans prepared by San Jose Water Company must be reviewed and
approved prior to issuance of any permit.
13
85. WATER METER: The existing water meters, currently located within the Alberto Way r ight-
of-way, shall be relocated within the property in question, directly behind the public right -
of-way line. The Applicant shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any portion
of concrete flatwork within said right-of-way that is damaged during this activity.
86. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The following improvements shall be installed by the Developer.
Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil engineer,
reviewed and approved by the Town, and guaranteed by contract, Faithful Performance
Security and Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of a building permit or the
recordation of a map. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town
before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
a. Alberto Way:
i. Install new curb, gutter, detached sidewalk with landscaped planting strip, street
lights, signing, striping, and storm drainage as directed by the Town Engineer.
ii. Remove and replace the existing pavement section along the project fronta ge with
a traffic-appropriate engineered structural pavement section from centerline to
the lip of gutter on the project (west) side.
iii. Provide a 2-inch grind and overlay from centerline to the east side of the street/lip
of gutter.
iv. Provide two (2) travel lanes, an exclusive right-turn lane 210 feet in length and a
shared left-thru lane, and a bike lane exiting Alberto Way.
v. Provide a green bike lane between the two travel lanes on southbound Alberto
Way.
vi. Install a green bike box on Alberto Way at the intersection with Los Gatos-Saratoga
Road.
vii. Install ADA-compliant curb ramps at the intersection of Alberto Way and Los
Gatos-Saratoga Road.
b. Los Gatos-Saratoga Road:
i. Install new curb, gutter, detached sidewalk with landscaped planting strip, street
lights, signing, striping, and storm drainage as directed by the Town Engineer.
ii. Install ADA-compliant curb ramps for the pedestrian crosswalk on Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road at the SR-17 northbound on-ramp. Install high visibility crosswalk
stripes and pedestrian warning lights as approved by Caltrans.
iii. Provide a 2-inch grind and overlay from the median island to the new lip of gutter
along the project frontage.
iv. Widen the north side of Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and remove & replace the
existing median island along Los Gatos-Saratoga Road to provide for a future bike
lane and a left-turn pocket, 250 feet in length, for eastbound Los-Gatos Saratoga
Road traffic turning onto northbound Alberto Way.
v. Provide pedestrian crosswalk improvements crossing the California State Route 17
northbound on-ramp, such as high-visibility crosswalk stripes, rectangular rapid
flashing beacons, a yield line and/or appropriate signage, etc. as approved by
Caltrans and the Town Engineer.
87. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MEASURES: Projects which propose work within the Town’s
right-of-way, including but not limited to pavement restoration, street widening,
14
construction of curb, gutter and/or sidewalk, right -of-way dedication, etc., will be
evaluated by Staff to determine its potential for the implementation of Green
Infrastructure measures and associated improvements.
88. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS: The Applicant shall be required to improve the project’s
public frontage to current Town Standards. These improvements may include but not
limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approach(es), curb ramp(s), traffic signal(s),
street lighting (upgrade and/or repaint) etc. The improvements must be completed and
accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be
issued.
89. BICYCLE FACILITIES: The Applicant shall install bike lanes and bike boxes in directions of
improved streets and intersections as directed by the Town Engineer. The improvements
must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any
new building can be issued.
90. ADA COMPLIANCE: The Applicant shall be required to meet all ADA standards, which must
be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new
building can be issued. This may require additional construction measures as dire cted by
the Town.
91. ON-STREET PARKING: On-street parking along the project’s Alberto Way frontage shall be
prohibited after the construction and installation of public improvements. Additionally,
new red curb shall be painted along the eastern curb of Alberto Way (northbound
direction) at the Best Western frontage.
92. UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE DRAINAGE: Water from the underground parking
garage shall not be discharged onto the public street. The Applicant shall design a floor
drainage system for the garage that collects all drainage and conveys runoff to the
sanitary sewer system. Connecting said drainage system to the storm drain system is not
permitted.
93. PARKING LOTS: Parking lots and other impervious areas shall be designed to drain
stormwater runoff to vegetated drainage swales, filter strips, and/or other treatment
devices that can be integrated into required landscaping areas and traffic islands prior to
discharge into the storm drain system and/or public right-of-way. The amount of
impervious area associated with parking lots shall be minimized by utilizing design
features such as providing compact car spaces, reducing stall dimensions, incorporating
efficient parking lanes, and using pervious pavement where feasible. The use of
permeable paving for parking surfaces is encouraged to reduce runoff from the site. Such
paving shall meet Santa Clara County Fire Department requirements and be structurally
appropriate for the location.
94. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility
services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines
underground, as required by Town Code Section 27.50.015(b). All new utility services
shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television
service. The Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments
from any and all utility service providers before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new
building can be issued. The Town of Los Gatos does not app rove or imply approval for
final alignment or design of these facilities.
15
95. SIDEWALK REPAIR: The Developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any
sidewalk damaged now or during construction of this project. All new and existing
adjacent infrastructure must meet current ADA standards. Sidewalk repair shall match
existing color, texture and design, and shall be constructed per Town Standard Details.
New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified
that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole
expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. The limits of
sidewalk repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the
construction phase of the project. The improvements must be completed and accepted
by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
96. CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR: The Developer shall repair and replace to existing Town
standards any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. All
new and existing adjacent infrastructure must meet Town standards. New curb and
gutter shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. New concrete shall be free of
stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or
equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional
compensation shall be allowed therefore. The limits of curb and gutter repair will be
determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of
the project. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a
Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
97. DRIVEWAY APPROACH: The Developer shall install two (2) Town standard commercial
driveway approaches. The new driveway approaches shall be constructed per Town
Standard Plans and must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of
Occupancy for any new building can be issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps,
logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall
be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional
compensation shall be allowed therefore.
98. CURB RAMPS: The Developer shall construct one (1) curb ramp in compliance with ADA
Standards which must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of
Occupancy for any new building can be issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps,
logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall
be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional
compensation shall be allowed therefore.
99. CALTRANS APPROVAL: The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining design approval(s)
and construction encroachment permit(s) from Caltrans for any improvements within the
Caltrans right-of-way.
100. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements, including but
not limiting to trees and hedges, will need to abide by Town Code Sections 23.10.080,
26.10.065, and 29.40.030.
101. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION): The Applicant shall upgrade
existing traffic signals to current Town standards including, and may not be limited to:
a. LED vehicular and pedestrian signal indication
b. LED safety and intersection lighting
c. ADA-compliant pedestrian push buttons
16
d. 12” signal heads
e. Emtrac fire preemption device
f. Service pedestal
g. New service pedestal at intersection (remove the existing service pedestal at the
south end of the Best Western and install new conduit from the existing service to the
new service pedestal)
h. Video detection system and cameras
i. Signal controller
j. Traffic signal interconnect
The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of
Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
102. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (STREET LIGHTS): The Applicant shall replace existing street
light poles with new street light poles and LED light fixtures. The improvements must be
completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new
building can be issued.
103. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (LOS GATOS-SARATOGA ROAD/ALBERTO WAY INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENT): Extend the left turn lane in eastbound Los Gatos -Saratoga Road to 250
feet in length. Re-construct the median island and necessary roadway configuration to
accommodate the extended left turn lane and to provide for future bike lane. Plans shall
be prepared by developer’s design consultants and submitted to Town Engineer for
approval prior to construction. Applicant is required to designate necessary right of way
for the required widening. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the
Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
104. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (SIGNAL INTERCONNECT FROM ALBERTO WAY TO LOS GATOS
BOULEVARD): Install signal interconnect conduit from Alberto Way to the existing empty
conduit approximately 300 feet east of Alberto Way. Repair said existing empty conduit if
necessary and as directed by the Town Engineer. Install conduits at Los Gatos
Boulevard/Los Gatos-Saratoga Road as needed for entering existing controller cabinet.
Install new signal interconnect cable in the new and existing conduits from Alberto
Way/Los Gatos-Saratoga Road to the existing signal controller cabinet at Los Gatos
Boulevard/Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. Install necessary communication equipment inside
existing controller cabinets at Alberto Way/Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and Los Gatos
Boulevard/Los Gatos-Saratoga Road for transmitting controller data and live video. Install
necessary signal interconnect equipment to complete functional signal communication.
105. THIRD PARTY STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSPECTION FEES: The Developer shall
pay a fee in the amount of $3,000.00 for Town’s inspection of street lights and traffic
signal-related work installed by the Developer. The fees shall be due at time of building
permit application.
106. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN (TDM): The Developer shall prepare a
Transportation Demand Management Plan for the Town of Los Gatos approval prior to
the issuance of a building permit. The TDM shall include the measures such as and not
limited to bicycle facility provisions, shower facilities, transit passes and subsidies, carpool
incentive, designated car share parking, shower and changing rooms, cash incentives,
transit passes and subsidies, carpool incentives, reserved car share parking, guaranteed
17
ride-home, etc., an annual monitoring report, and other measures that may be required
by the Town Engineer. The TDM shall also include a TDM coordinator and identify the
requirement and targets for an annual TDM effectiveness report to the Town of Los
Gatos.
107. TRAFFIC STUDY: Any development of land use that generates greater traffic impacts t han
those assumed in the traffic study report may require an updated traffic study in
accordance with the Town’s traffic impact policy.
108. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: The developer shall pay the project's proportional
share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within
the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in
effect at the time the building permit is issued. The fee shall be paid before issuance of a
building permit. The traffic impact mitigation fee for this project using the current fee
schedule is estimated at $454,770.00. The final fee with credits for complete street
improvements along Los Gatos-Saratoga Road shall be calculated from the final plans
using the rate schedule in effect immediately prior to building permit issuance.
109. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING: No construction vehicles, trucks, equipment and
worker vehicles shall be allowed to park on the portion of any public (Town) streets
without written approval from the Town Engineer.
110. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN: A traffic control plan is required and must be submitted and
approved prior to any work in the public right-of-way. This plan shall include, but not be
limited to, the following measures:
a. Construction activities shall be strategically timed and coordinated to minimize traffic
disruption for schools, residents, businesses, special events, and other projects in the
area. The schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with the
coordination of the trucking operation to minimize traffic disruption.
b. Flag persons shall be placed at locations necessary to control one -way traffic flow. All
flag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to coordinate
the operation.
c. Prior to construction, advance notification of all affected residents and emergency
services shall be made regarding one-way operation, specifying dates and hours of
operation.
111. CALTRANS APPROVAL OF TRAFFIC CONTOL PLANS: The Developer shall be responsible for
submitting the proposed traffic control plans to Caltrans for approval for any work within
the Caltrans right-of-way or that may affect traffic on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road (California
State Route 9).
112. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL: All construction traffic and related vehicular routes,
traffic control plan, and applicable pedestrian or traffic detour plans shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to beginning of any work.
113. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION: Advance notification of all affected residents and emerge ncy
services shall be made regarding parking restriction, lane closure or road closure, with
specification of dates and hours of operation.
114. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on- or off-site shall not occur during the morning or
evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00
p.m.), and at other times as specified by the Director of Parks and Public Works. Prior to
18
the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall work with the Town Building
Department and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure
safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off of the project
site. This may include, but is not limited to provisions for the Developer/Owner to place
construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling
activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with other significant
projects in the area may also be required. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other
loose debris.
115. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All subdivision improvements and site improvements
construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy
equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m .,
weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays. The Town may authorize,
on a case-by-case basis, alternate construction hours. The Applicant shall provide written
notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this
request is at discretion of the Town.
116. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall
be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding
eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located
within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close
to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside
of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA.
117. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET: Prior to the issuance of any permits, the
Applicant shall submit a construction management plan sheet (full-size) within the plan
set that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan,
Project Schedule, Truck Haul Route and Management Plan, Construction Phasing Plan, site
security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, materials storage area(s),
construction trailer(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse location(s). Prior to
receiving building, demolition, or grading permit issuance, a draft of this plan shall be
submitted for review by the Town. Please refer to the Town’s Construction Management
Plan Guidelines document for additional information.
118. CALTRANS: Prior to the start of any work along or within Caltrans rights-of-way and/or
easement, the Developer shall obtain necessary encroachment permits for the proposed
work. A copy of approved encroachment permit is required to be submitted to the
Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to permit issuance.
119. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West
Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or
reused. A Sanitary Sewer Clean-out is required for each property at the property line,
within one (1) foot of the property line per West Valley Sanitation District Standard
Drawing 3, or at a location specified by the Town.
120. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: Construction activities including but not limited to
clearing, stockpiling, grading or excavation of land, which disturbs one (1) acre or more
which are part of a larger common plan of development which disturbs less than one (1)
acre are required to obtain coverage under the construction general permit with the State
19
Water Resources Control Board. The Applicant is required to provide proof of WDID# and
keep a current copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) on the
construction site and shall be made available to the Town of Los Gatos Engineering
Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and/or Building Department upon
request.
121. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Applicant is responsible for ensuring that all
contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are
implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and be placed for
all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment and/or
operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during
construction activities) shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to
comply with the construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices,
citations, or stop work orders.
122. STORMWATER DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF: All new development and redevelopment
projects are subject to the stormwater development runoff requirements. Every
Applicant shall submit a stormwater control plan and implement conditions of approval
that reduce stormwater pollutant discharges through the construction, operation and
maintenance of treatment measures and other appropriate source control and site design
measures. Increases in runoff volume and flows shall be managed in accordance with the
development runoff requirements.
123. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate the following measures:
a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography.
b. Minimize impervious surface areas.
c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas.
d. Use permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum.
e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
124. LANDSCAPING: In finalizing the landscape plan for the biotreatment area(s), it is
recommended that the landscape architect ensure that the characteristics of the selected
plants are similar to those of the plants listed for use in bioretention areas in Appendix D
of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) C.3
Stormwater Handbook.
125. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The Developer shall enter into a Landscape
Maintenance Agreement with the Town of Los Gatos in which the Developer agrees to
maintain the vegetated areas along the project’s Alberto Way and Los Gatos-Saratoga
Road frontages located within the public right-of-way. The agreement must be completed
and accepted by the Town Attorney prior to the issuance of any permits.
126. EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and
submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A
Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be
submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for projects
disturbing more than one (1) acre. A maximum of two (2) weeks is allowed between
clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy
season. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and
before installation of the final landscaping, shall be included. Interim erosion control
20
method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and
details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check
dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect
downstream water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control
plans and SWPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures contained in the
amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of most current Santa Clara County National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Monitoring for
erosion and sediment control is required and shall be performed by the Qualified SWPPP
Developer (QSD) or Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) as required by the Construction
General Permit. Stormwater samples are required for all discharge locations and projects
may not exceed limits set forth by the Construction General Permit Numeric Action Levels
and/or Numeric Effluent Levels. A Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) must be developed
forty-eight (48) hours prior to any likely precipitation even, defined by a fifty (50) percent
or greater probability as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and/or whenever rain is imminent. The QSD or QSP must print
and save records of the precipitation forecast for the project location area from
(http://www.srh.noaa.gov/forecast) which must accompany monitoring reports and
sampling test data. A rain gauge is required on-site. The Town of Los Gatos Engineering
Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and the Building Department will
conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throu ghout the recognized storm season
to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances
and regulations.
127. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that
paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading,
and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be
present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust
shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three (3)
times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas,
and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust
for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets shall be
cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town
Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction activity
shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one (1)
late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled
or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swep t on a daily basis
during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities
shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed twenty-five (25) miles per
hour (MPH). All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.
128. DETAILING OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: Prior to the issuance of any
permits, all pertinent details of any and all proposed stormwater management facilities,
including, but not limited to, ditches, swales, pipes, bubble-ups, dry wells, outfalls,
infiltration trenches, detention basins and energy dissipaters, shall be provided on
submitted plans, reviewed by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works
Department, and approved for implementation.
21
129. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of
the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities
and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control
ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as
required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities.
130. STORMWATER DISCHARGE: New buildings shall provide a covered or enclosed area for
dumpsters and recycling containers. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on
to the area and runoff from the area. Areas around trash enclosures and recycling areas
shall not discharge directly to the storm drain system. Any drains installed in or beneath
dumpsters and compactors shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. The Applicant shall
contact the local permitting authority and/or sanitary district with jurisdiction for specific
connection and discharge requirements.
131. WATER FEATURES: The proposed fountain feature shall have a connection to the sanitary
sewer system, subject to West Valley Sanitation District’s authority and standards, to
facilitate draining events. Discharges from this feature shall be directed to the sanitary
sewer and are not allowed into the storm drain system.
132. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb
drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to
public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate “NO DUMPING - Flows to
Bay” NPDES required language. On-site drainage systems for all projects shall include one
of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit.
These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from
impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry wells are to
be used they shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the adjacent property line
and/or right-of-way. No improvements shall obstruct or divert runoff to the detriment of
an adjacent, downstream or down slope property.
133. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: A storm water management shall be included with
the grading permit application for all Group 1 and Group 2 projects as defined in the
amended provisions C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order R2-
2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. The plan shall delineate source control
measures and BMPs together with the sizing calculations. The plan shall be certified by a
professional pre-qualified by the Town. In the event that the storm water measures
proposed on the Planning approval differ significantly from those certified on the
Building/Grading Permit, the Town may require a modification of the Planning approval
prior to release of the Building Permit. The Applicant may elect to have the Planning
submittal certified to avoid this possibility.
134. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN NOTES: The following note shall be added to the
storm water management plan: “The biotreatment soil mix used in all st ormwater
treatment landscapes shall comply with the specifications in Attachment L of the MRP.
Proof of compliance shall be submitted by the Contractor to the Town of Los Gatos a
minimum of thirty (30) days prior to delivery of the material to the job site using the
Biotreatment Soil Mix Supplier Certification Statement.”
135. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CERTIFICATION: Certification from the biotreatment
soils provider is required and shall be given to Engineering Division Inspection staff a
22
minimum of thirty (30) days prior to delivery of the material to the job site. Additionally
deliver tags from the soil mix shall also be provided to Engineering Division Inspection
staff. Sample Certification can be found here:
http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/nd_wp.shtml?zoom_highlight=BIOTREATMENT+SOIL.
136. AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INSPECTION AND
MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS: The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the
Town for maintenance of the stormwater filtration devices required to be insta lled on this
project by the Town’s Stormwater Discharge Permit and all current amendments or
modifications. The agreement shall specify that certain routine maintenance shall be
performed by the property owner and shall specify device maintenance reportin g
requirements. The agreement shall also specify routine inspection requirements, permits
and payment of fees. The agreement shall be recorded, and a copy of the recorded
agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Wo rks
Department, prior to the release of any occupancy permits.
137. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor and
homeowner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right -of-way is cleaned up on
a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into
the Town’s storm drains.
138. OUTDOOR TRASH ENCLOSURES: Outdoor trash enclosures shall be covered and provided
with area drains connected to the sanitary sewer per current NPDES requirements before
a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. Temporary trash
enclosures are exempt from this condition. Connecting said drainage system to the storm
drain system is not permitted.
139. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during
the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person or
persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The Developer's
representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to
maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in penalties and/or
the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense.
140. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSTRUCTION COMMUNICATION PLAN: Immediately upon approval of
any permit, the Applicant shall initiate a weekly neighborhood email notification program
to provide project status updates. The email notices shall also be posted on a bulletin
board placed in a prominent location along the project perimeter.
141. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered.
N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2018\Alberto 401-409_remand.doc
Buchalter
January 3, 2018
VIA E-MAIL (JARMER@LOSGATOSCA.GOV) & FEDEX
Ms. Jennifer Armer
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Phone: { 408) 354-6872
Email: jarmer@losgatosca.gov
55 Second Street
Sule 1700
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.227.0900 Phone
415.227.0770 Fax
File Number. L4342-0002
415.227.3508 Direct
aguerra@buchalter.com
Re: January 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting -Responses to Commission Comments from
December 13, 2017 Meeting for 401-409 Alberto Way
Architecture and Site Application S-15-056;
Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009
APN 529-23-018
As you know, Buchalter represents LP Acquisitions, the developer of the project located at 401-
409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos. At its meeting of December 13, 2017, the Town of Los Gatos Planning
Commission offered comments and raised questions regarding the Architecture and Site Application S-
15-056, Conditional Use Permit Application U -15-009, and Environmental Impact Report EIR.-16-001 for
the 401-409 Alberto Way Project (the "Alberto Way Project'').
All of the comments that the Planning Commission received at its December 13, 2017 meeting
are the same comments that the commenters submitted in August 2016, March 2017, April 2 017, May
2017, September 2017 and October 2017 for the 91,965 square foot building (Original Project) and the
83,000 square foot building ("Second Redesignn) and the modifications to the Second Redesign presented
to the Town Council at its meeting in September, 2017 ("Second Redesign"). The attached matrix
summarizes the responses to all of the prior comments and includes responses specific to the 7 4,260
square foot building ("Third Redesign") presented to the Planning Commission (See Exhibit A). The
project team addressed these comments in multiple submittals to the Planning Commission and Town
Council as summarized below and contained in the September 27, 2017 submittal to Jennifer Armer for
cons ideration at the Los Gatos Town Council (See Exhibit B).
Additionally, this letter responds to the following specific comments for which the Commission
requested written responses at the conclusion of its meeting on December 13th:
BN 31665449vl
buchalter.com
Los A n geles
Napa Valley
Orange County
Sacramento
San Francisco
Scottsdale
fiXHl9{r 2 3
Buchalter
Ms. Jennifer Armer
January 3, 2018
Page2
• Provide width, length, and area of land being dedicated to the Town for street widening;
• Construction management plan -additional details beyond the information provided in the
project letter submitted November 7th;
• Explain what makes office space "Class A" office space;
• Provide details of the TOM Program, specific to the CAT shuttle that could be included as a
condition of approval;
• Descnbe possible options to work toward a single level ofundecground parking, or a clear
explanation as to why a single level is not feasible; and
• Clarify how much square footage would be dedicated and included as part of Alberto Way
and explain whether an emergency vehicle will be able to drive down the street.
Alberto Way Dedication
The Planning Commission requested information regarding the width, length, and area of land
being dedicated to the Town for street widening. In particular, the Commission requested this
information in order to understand the future road width and emergency access during construction
(clarify when in the construction timeline the new sidewalks and road widening would actually occur,
since it may not be until the end of construction).
Response-
According to Kiec & Wright, the Project engineer, LP Acquisitions is dedicating approximately
355 feet of the Property to the Town for additional right-of-way. This length begins at the property's
boundary near the intersection of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Alberto Way and continues east along
the Project's frontage. The width of the dedicated frontage begins at approximately 2. 8' and widens to
3.1' along the curve (about 325' east of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road) and eventually tapers back to the
original property line. The total area of the land being dedicated is approximately 978 square feet .
The offsite work is scheduled to begin at the same time as the Core & Shell building construction
and the estimated timeline for completion is concurrent with the Core & Shell's construction
schedule. This work is estimated to start 6.75 months from the beginning of construction and should be
completed 12.75 to 14 months after the project's start date. Alberto Way's sidewalk along the project's
frontage will be closed during construction and all pedestrian traffic will be relocated to the other side of
the street. Alberto Way will remain open during the duration of the project for emergency vehicle access.
Construction Management Plan
The Planning Commission requested additional details beyond the information provided in the
project letter submitted on November 7, 2017 regarding the construction management plan. The
Commission also asked for potential measures that could be conditions of approval to help neighbors be
more comfortable with excavation and dewatering and impact to through traffic on Alberto Way. The
Commission requested a map showing locations on site for different storage/offloading locations.
BN 31665449vl
Buchalter
Ms. Jennifer Armer
January 3, 2018
Page3
Response-
lnformation regarding the conceptual construction management plan was summarized in the
Septemher 27, 2017 submittal to the Town Council and identified in the matr..x in Exhibit A The
attached Preliminary Construction Diagram contained in Exhibit C depicts the proposed construction
traffic management plan. The Town's process requires that a Construction Management Plan be
submitted and approved during the construction process, not during the planning approval process.
Nonetheless, in response to the neighbors and Planning Commission's questions, LP Acquisitions would
coordinate the construction process so as to not impact through traffic on Alberto Way as well as
emergency vehicles. LP Acquisitions has indicated on numerous occasions that no off-haul excavation
would occur during the AM or PM peak hour traffic periods between 7-9am and 4-6pm. Additionally, the
proposed Third Redesign allows for all construction vehicles to be staged on-site. ·
Class "A" Office Space Criteria
The Planning Commission requested additional information regarding what makes office space
Class "A" 1 office space, and explain why the minimum for a Class "A" office building just happens to be
74,260 square feet, the EIR's recommended size for the Reduced Scale Alternative as described on page
S-8 of the Draft EJR.
1 Class "A" Office definition by42 Floors:
Class A buildings are coveted, highly sought spaces of significant size, usually in a central locatioo. In a central
business district, this could mean 250,000 square feet or more of office space; in a suburban location or smaller
metropolitan area, a 50,000 square foot building might qualify. These prestigious buildings compete for premier
office tenant.a. They have high occupancy rates and often will house only a handful of notable companies.
Size and location are only part of the equation, however; Class A buildings possess top-notch qualities that demand
higher rents, like superior infrastructure, state-of-tho-art technology capabilities, high-tech security, and the latest in
elevator and HV AC systems.
Amenities abound for tenants of a Class A building. Concierge and outstanding security services are standard. A
Class A building may have an indoor atrium featuring abundant greenery and a soothing water feature. Another may
have a food court with cares, restaurants, and coffee shops for workday breaks. Mail collection and copying services
are often in-house, providing a valued convenience. On-site parking is another frequait amenity of this building
class.
Systems and amenities are important, but aesthetics are what really give Class A buildings the "wow" fuctor.
Finishes can be mahogany and imported tile, lobbies are luxuriously appointed with marble and glass, and the whole
building exudes professional elegance.
Overall architectural design also tends to be notable in Class A structures, employing the latest technology for
benchmark-setting efficiency. Arresting architecture draws attention and brands the building as an image-defining
office structure.
Class A buildings aren't always new buildings--renowned structures with stellar ownership in prime neighborhoods
are often Class A buildings due to market presence. They compete with othec prestigious buildings for the same kind
of discerning, image-conscious client. See https:!/42floors.com!edu/bevond-the-basics/determini11g-the-class-of-a11-
o(fice-buildi11g.
BN 31665449vl
Buchalter
Ms. Jennifer Armer
January 3, 2018
Page4
Response-
The revised Project at 74,260 square feet with the reduction in the footprint in the subsurface
parking garage is feasible, as explained in my client's November 7th letter. As LP Acquisitions has
indicated on numerous occasions, a key project objective is to build a Class "A" office building in the Los
Gatos market. We outlined the specific factors that are critical to the development of a Class" A" office
building in this market sector in prior letters to the Commission and the Town Council (see e .g., attached
Letter to Mayor Sayoc dated September 27, 2017) . An even smaller office building surrounded by more
surface parking in order to compensate for the loss of a floor of underground parking would mean that the
building's developer would be unable to provide secured parking for its tenants and unable to
accommodate the types of building populations,~amenities and features that are common and expected in
a Class "A" office building. In addition, the cost per square foot would substantially increase to
accommodate the requested revisions, making the project economically infeasible as described in the
Applicant's Letter dated November 7, 2017 on file with the Town of Los Gatos Planning Department and
incorporated by reference.
Today's office and high technology tenants that lease Class "A" office buildings do so with the
understanding that the individual floor plate sizing will accommodate the requisite number of open office
cubicles, private offices, conference rooms and amenity spaces for an efficient workspace, with the proper
level of office population and interaction per floor required in a modern high technology work
environment. Please see the attached letters from Gregg von Thaden, Avison Young, and also Justin M .
Riley, Colliers International, both brokers who have ex.tensive experience leasing Class "A" office
buildings throughout Silicon Valley, contained in Exhibit D . As Mr. von Thaden and Mr. Riley both
state, more than 95% of developed Class "A" office space provides larger floor plates ranging from
35,000 to 40,000 square feet .
As has been demonstrated by the millions of square feet of recent low and midrise office space
constructed throughout Silicon Valley and beyond, floor plates smaller than 37,000 square feet are not
capable of properly accommodating the aforementioned needs of today's modern office and/or high
technology tenants. Any further reduction in floor plate size will result in a building that is untenable
from both economic cost of construction and leasing marketability standpoints. High technology tenants
demand large, open floor plates, capable of supporting amenity areas that are separate from the traditional
work (cubicle and office) spaces for informal break-out and collaboration areas that foster team
interaction and brainstorming as stated in Mr. von Thaden's letter. Please refer to the attached 1lxl7
floor plans of +/-37,000 square foot floor plates for other, recent developer projects/buildings in Silicon
Valley illustrating layouts that exemplify the above description of a modern, efficient, high technology
workspace with the requisite amenity areas demanded by today's Class 'A' tenants. We have also
provided some photos of these work environments to further support the need for floor plates no smaller
than 37,000 square feet (see Exhibit D).
TDM Program-CAT Shuttle Details
The Planning Commission asked that the Applicant provide details of the CAT shuttle-(vehicle
size, service hours, general route, number of special events, etc.) that could be included as a condition of
approval if the Project were approved.
BN 31665449vl
Buchalter
Ms. Jennifer Armer
January 3, 2018
Pages
Response-
LP Acquisitions is committed to implementing measures to reduce the Project's carbon footprint
whether it involves prov:icting ~shuttle, designating carpool parking stalls with charging stations for 24
clean air vehicles, 36 bicycle stalls or a pedestrian/bicyck.lride-share program. The CAT ("Community
Area Transit") is a 28-passenger shuttle that will make a continuous loop (every 30minutes ), free of
charge for tenants, neighbors, and residents to use Monday through Friday, from 10:30am until 3:30pm;
and for a few special events in Los Gatos each year. As part of the Applicant's commitment to innovation
and creativity, LP Acquisitions provided the following demonstrations of the free downtown Los Gatos
shuttle service on the following dates and times:
1. August 12-13, 2017 (Fiesta de Artes); Saturday: 9:30am to 9:30pm. Sunday: 8:30am to
5:30pm
2. August 25-26, 2017 (Annual Summer Sidewalk Sale); Friday and Saturday: 10:30am to
3:30pm
3. September 14-15, 2017: Thursday and Friday: 10:30am to 3:30pm.
Ridership during all three demonstrations was solid and many of the riders were residents,
working professionals, and some visitors from out of town. Approximately 40 of the Alberto Way
neighbors rode the shuttle during the Fiesta de Art.t:::i event. During the September demonstration, LP
Acquisitions had over 70 students ride the shuttle. Most of the students were 9th graders who have yet to
obtain their driver's licenses. The majority of the students visited downtown food retailers after school,
while their parents were able to avoid after-school traffic. Bob Mistele and Kristi Grasty at the Los Gatos
Unified School District were instrumental in advising the students and their parents about the shuttle.
Downtown businesses offered positive feedback regarding the benefit of the shuttle to bringing
potentially over 300 new customers to downtown every day while minimizing traffic or parking impacts.
During the :free shuttle demonstrations, some of the downtown merchants informed LP Acquisitions that
their business revenues increased during the demonstration. The demonstration rides indicate that the
CAT will enable building occupants and residents in the area to visit downtown for lunch or shopping
without adversely affecting downtown traffic or the limited supply of parking spaces. Please see attached
Shuttle Information Sheet and Shuttle Stops Map in Exhibit E. Hexagon previously submitted an
analysis of the effectiveness of the CAT shuttle as a TDM measure as further discussed in Exlnbit E.
We also previously submitted the proposed language to be added to Condition of Approval # 103
which proposed operational details of the CAT shuttle. The revised Condition of Approval #103
provides:
Applicant/Develope.r2 hereby agrees and acknowledges that it shall provide (i) lessees of the
project, (ii) senior citizens, neighbors and community members, (iii) all Los Gatos students
(including the Los Gatos High students), and (iv) visitors to the Town (collectively, the
"Community Beneficiaries") with access to, and use of, a shuttle service (hereinafter the "Shuttle
2 1his condition may apply to the building tenant if the Tenant desires to control the CAT operations, in which case
the operational details of this condition will be reflected in the lease terms. For purposes of this condition,
"Applicant/Developer" shall refer to "Tenant" under such circumstances.
BN 3 1665449vl
Buchalter
Ms. Jennifer Armer
January 3, 2018
Page6
Service"), which Shuttle Service shall transport the Community Beneficiaries to and :from the
project and certain locations within the Town (which locations are more particularly shown on the
map attached hereto). Applicant/Developer shall provide the Shuttle Service to the Community
Beneficiaries, free of charge, Monday through Friday, from 10:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m., and for
three (3) on~day public events chosen by the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce with input from
the Town Manager. Applicant/Developer may, but shall not be obligated to provide the Shuttle
Service to the Community Beneficiaries for additional events not expressly stated in the
preceding sentence. The Applicant's/Developer's obligation to provide the Shuttle Service to the
Community Beneficiaries shall be binding upon the Applicant/Developer and its respective
successors and assigns, and may be amended, supplemented, terminated or modified only by an
instrument in writing executed by the Applicant/Developer (or its successors and assigns) and the
Town.
The Applicant's/Developer's obligation to provide the Shuttle Service to the Community
Beneficiaries shall be binding upon the Applicant/Developer and its respective successors
and assigns, and may be amended, supplemented, terminated or modified only by an
instrument in writing executed by the Applicant/Developer (or its successors and assigns)
and the Town.
Size of the Underground Parking Garage
The Commission requested that the Applicant describe possible options for a single level of
underground parking, or to provide a clear reasoning as to why a single level is not feasible.
Response -
We previously submitted extensive information regarding the underground garage as shown in
Exhibit A. Further reductions in the size of the building to 56,000 square feet or less than 62,000 square
feet as requested by the comm.enters are not feasible as a result of a desire to reduce the parking garage to
a single level. Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" as "capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors." As we previously stated, the factors that may be taken
into account when addressing the feasibility of on-site alternatives include site suitability, economic
viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, and
jurisdictional boundaries. Reducing the building by another 10,000 square feet or more would not
significantly reduce the less-than-significant impacts of the 74,260 square foot building because the Third
Redesign already reduces the impacts to the residents along the northern property boundary and provides
extensive site frontage landscape screening.
A single level underground parking garage is not feasible for the 74,260 square foot
building. Multiplying 74.260 x 4 = 298 parking spaces required, less 38 surface spaces, yields 260 spaces
required in the garage. Four Hundred and Twenty (420) square feet is required per car (based on the
current garage layout, including circulation space) which yields a total area of 109,200 square feet for a
single level underground parking garage. This area will not fit within the setback lines and even if it did,
it would completely eliminate the construction staging area on the front side of the site which was
requested by the Town and the neighbors. The podium would occupy the entire underground area and
BN 31665449vl
Buchalter
Ms. Jennifer Armer
January 3, 2018
Page7
would still be short by 10,000 square feet . Also, the podium would not allow heavy weighted trucks to
park and deliver.
Jn addition, eliminating the new, addoo amenity areas on the north side of the building and
replacing these with additional surface parking is infeasible, as a minimum of 60 feet in width is required
for a double row of parking with a center drive aisle (most efficient layout) and only 46 feet in width is
available assuming a 5-foot landscape setback at the property line and a 5-foot landscape buffer at the
building. Accordingly, providing additional surface parking to offset a reduction in the amount of below-
grade parking would not be a feasible option given the site constraints .
Furthermore, the Town's motivation for making the garage one level below grade is based
primarily on the erroneous claims made by Dr. Geissler that it is impossible to design a below-grade
garage that will not leak or flood. As the Project design and engineering plans demonstrated at the
Planning Commission meeting of December 13th, and will further demonstrate when LP Acquisitions
submits fully engineered plans and calculations for the building permit, these comments are irresponsible
and conflict with empirical data for thousands of multi-level subsurface parking garages designed and
constructed throughout the world. When the garage is properly designed and engineered, the conditions
Dr. Geissler claims will happen will not actually occur, as the Alberto Way project team and other design
and engineering teams have designed thousands of underground parking garages below the water table
that do not le&c, do not flood, and perform as designed (see ENGEO supplemental ~es inciuded
with prior Town Council staff reports). The design and engineering of this underground parking garage
will be no different; it will be properly engineered and waterproofed as explained in our prior submittals
such that it will not leak or flood or cause any subsidence of land on any adjacent public or private
property, either during its construction when dewatering occurs, or after its completion.
As evidence that subsurface garages have been constructed, projects with similar underground
parking garages in the local Silicon Valley area include the Netflix Building on Winchester Blvd in Los
Gatos, Stadium TechCenter at 5450 Great America Parkway in Santa Clara, the Sobrato Building
currently under construction at 599 Castro Street in Mountain View, and numerous high-rise development
projects in Downtown San Jose. EN GEO further confirmed that the Netflix Building A located at 100
Winchester Circle has a parking half-floor under the building pedestal, plus two full floors of parking
below. This structure demonstrates that buildings with multiple levels of below grade parking have been
built in Los Gatos.
Width of Alberto Way
The Planning Commission asked if an emergency vehicle will be able to drive down Alberto Way
with the Project roadway improvements to Alberto Way.
Response-
Alberto Way will be designed in accordance with Town of Los Gatos standards, and the road will
be of sufficient right-of-way width to accommodate emergency vehicle traffic as discussed in the BIR and
prior correspondence.
BN 3166S449v1
Buchalter
Ms. Jennifer Armer
January 3, 2018
Page8
Comments Regarding Design of Parking Garage
Dr. Geissler and neighborhood residents continue to suggest that a two-level parking garage
would pose safety concerns to the adjacent residences in the neighborhood due to excavation of the
building foundation.
ENGEO's design-level geotechnical report, response to peer review letter, and supplemental
response letters contained in the Draft EIR and the Applicant's prior submittals as identified in Exhibit A
were all signed and stamped by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer. In California, experts
practicing in geotechnical engineering obtain additional licensure beyond the professional civil
engineering registration. A registered Geotechnical Engineer (GE} is a professional who demonstrates a
minimum of four years of qualifying soils experience beyond what is required for licensure as a civil
engineer. Moreover, a GE needs to be recommended by at least four professional engineers and passes an
additional examination on geotechnical engineering before becoming registered
A GE is recognized by the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and
Geologists as a professional who demonstrates a higher level of knowledge and judgment over a
Professional Civil Engineer on geotechnical subjects. We are confident that the geotechnical engineers
supporting the 401-409 Alberto Way project are knowledgeable on the standard of care in geotechnical
engineering within California. We note that Dr. Geissler is not a registered GE in the State of California
or anywhere else in the United States based on publicly available information r e garding Dr. Geissler's
credentials.
Moreover, ENGEO's conclusions and recommendations on the proposed development were peer
reviewed by Mr. Robert Wright, Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG} and Mr. Christopher Coutu,
Geotechnical Engineer (GE), two highly reputable practitioners with AMEC, who have worked on and
reviewed many large public projects in the Bay Area including in the Town of Los Gatos. The Town of
Los Gatos Public Works Department reviewed and accepted the conclusions ofENGEO and the Town's
peer review consultants and considered those reports in determining appropriate conditions of approval
for the Project.
Certain members of the Planning Commission also raised questions about the need for post-
construction monitoring. The primary concern of the Town and various public commenters is that
dewatering during construction of the proposed below grade parking structure could cause settlement and
foundation distress to offsite properties. Based on ENGEO's experience with dewatering projects in the
San Francisco Bay Area, periodic monitoring of established survey monuments and groundwater wells
during construction are typical measures employed to assess the potential for dewatering-related distress
to offsite properties. When dewatering wells are turned off at the completion of construction, groundwater
levels will equalize and resume typical seasonal fluctuations . Because the potential mechanism for
settlement (i.e. dewatering) would only occur during construction, post-construction monitoring would
serve no purpose and is not required as explained at the December 13, 2017 Planning Commission
meeting.
BN 3 I 665449v1
Buchalter
Ms. Jennifer Armer
January 3, 2018
Page9
Conclusion
The Third Redesign is consistent with the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines and preserves
the small town character of Los Gatos as further discussed in the attachments to this letter. Substantial
evidence demonstrates that the Project's environmental impacts will be fully mitigated to a less-than-
significant level, and that the Third Redesign is feasible and fully addresses the comments raised by the
public and the Planning Commission. We appreciate your consideration of our responses and look
forward to the Planning Commission's consideration of the Alberto Way Project in January.
Sincerely,
BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation By £•
AG:sl
Exhibits
cc (via email): Randy Lamb
Shane Arters
Jolie Houston
Gary Black
Ollie Zhou
Dan Mitchell
Dan Kirby
BN 31665449v1
Uri Eliahu, GE
Gregory Cubbon, CEG, PE
Robert H. Boeche, CEG
Alicia Guerra
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Comments
Aesthetics
Revised project description (PD)
fails to address size & mass of
buildings (PLO, 8); revised
building is nearly 2 ~~ times sf of
existing office buildings and
should be reduced by 1/3 to !-2.
size and scale not suitable for
surrounding neighborhood of
mostly senior residents.
Revised PD Allows Tenants.to
look into Las Casitas windows
(PLG, 8}
BN31572llM
EXHmrrA
405 Alberto Way (Formerly 401-409) Alberto Way Project
Planning Commission Comments and Respon!eJ Matrix
January 10, 2018
Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment
Addressed (in addition to this matrix)
Please refer to Apj>licant Response Letter dated DEIR Section 3.1, page 3· l I addressed potential
August.18, 20i6and.Jlages 1~7 ofthe Applicant impacts of the larger project footprint Tile
Response Letter dated March I 7, 2017 (Summary of Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,
ArdtitecturaJ Changee and responses to comments by W 16: Applicant Response Letter dated March 17.
Thomas O'Oonnetl and Matthew Hudes). Al.so see 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and
Draft EIR Section 3.1 which concluded the projecf s responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell
aesthetic impacts \Vert: less than significant. Third and Matthew Hudes) explains how the impacts
Redesign further reduces Project size to 74,260 sf. were further reduced with project changes and
and results in an almost 10,000 sf reduction smaller footprint Sec the Applicant Letter dated
compared to1he.Ori&inal Project as discussed in the November 7, 2017 regarding the further reduction
January 2, 2018 lettcr from Buchalter. in the project with the Third Redesign.
The revised project has relocated the building an Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017
additional 10 feet away from the north property line, (response to comment I. ii. by Charles Erekson).
thus affording the Las Casitas residents more privacy DEIR page 3-11 addressed potential impacts of
than did the ori&inaldesign and further minimizing the larger project footprint and concluded the
impacts as planned on page 2 of the Applicant impacts were less tban significant. Tile Second
Response Letter datee. March 17. 2017. In addition. and TI1frd Redesigns further reduce the less-than-
the revised pr0ject eliminates the second-floor significant impacts .
exterior balcony on the north side of the Building.
Generous landscape s:reening (trees and shrubs) has
been added into this new setback area, further
increasing the visible buffer between the two adjacent
properties. further revisions were made in the Third
Redesign to preserve l>fivacy for residents as
explained in 1he November 7, 2017 letter.
Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment
Addressed {in addition to this matrix)
Blocks views of Santa Cruz Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated DEIR page 3-10 addressed less-than-significant
?vfountains(PLCi.8-9) ~larch 17, 2017 lSummary of Architectural Changes visual impacts of the original project. The
and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell Applicant Response Letter dated Mardi 17. 2017
and Matthew Hudes). The Third Redesign reduces (Summary of Architectmal Changes and
massing and square footage in the northern portion of responses to comments by Thomas O 'Donnell
the building to provide a more expansive view of the rutd Matthew Hudes) described the further
Santa Crllz Mountains. reduction in visual impacts associated with the
reduced project footprint .. The Third Redesign
further reduces impacts to views of the San:a
Cruz Mountains as presented at the December 13,
2017 Planning Commission meeting and in the
November 7. 2017 letter .
Negative aesthetic impacts The revised project description in the Second and DEIR page.s 3-10 through 3-13 addressed less-
(contrary to EIR); concerned Third Redesigns relocated the building an additional than-significant light and glare impacts offae
about glare and shadows and 10 feet away from the north property line, :ind has original projecc. See also Applicant Response
people being able to see into eliminated the second story balcony on the north-side Letter dated March 17. 2017 (response to
tenants' \\oindows (PLG, 33) ofthe building, thus affording the Las Casitas comment l. ii. by Charles Erekson) and the
resident~ more privacy than did the previous design. Applicant Response Letter dated November 7.
The redesign eliminates shadows on the property to 2017.
the nortt., except during the e).1reme winter months
when shadows would still be cast by the existing
building> and trees on the current properly. Generous
landscas:e screening (trees and shrubs) has been
added into this new setback area. funher increasing
the visible buffer between the two adjacent
properties. Glare off the north-facing windows of the
new building is not possible as the sun does not strike
the north side of the building.
Architecture should be in The Third Redesign further reduces the scale and Page 3-10 through 3-13 of the DEIR addressed
keeping with existing residential massing of the building as shown at the Planning less-than-significant visual impacts of the original
neighborhood. and lower Commission meeting on December 13. 2017. project. Applicant Response Letter dated August
building height, etc. 18. :?016; Applicant Response Letter dated March
17 , 2017 (Summary of Architectural 01anges and
responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D.
Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes); Applicant
Response Letters dated September 27, 2017 and
November 7, 2017 regarding Third Redesign.
2
BN 3157:!3:!1v l
Comments Response to Comment Project Document in wldcb Comment
Addressed (in addition tO this matrix)
Ensure that new development Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,
reinforces and supports the August 18, 2016 and pag~ 1-3 of the Applicant 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17,
special qualities of the Town .of ~sponse Letter dated March 17. 2017 (Summary of 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and
Los Oatos (PLG, 47) Architectural Changes and responses to comments by responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D.
Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and T\fatthew Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See
Hudes). The Project incorporated recommendations Applicant Response Letter dated September 27,
from the Town's consulting architect, Cannon Design 2017 which addressed the Second Redesi,gn and
Group, including eliminating tower elements, the Applicant Response Letter dated November 7,
eliminating the.second-fl06)C exterior balcony on the 2017 regarding the Third Redesign and how the
narth-side of'the Building. The design retains its changes to the project further reduce the size and
Mission-Style architecture which maintains the small scale of the building.
town feel and resembles other nearby commercial
ckvelopments in Los Gat05.
A1rQa11fty "
ImpactS are understated and Please refer to tht Hexagon Transportation Draft pages 3-3 I to 3-38 and Conditions of
mitigatims inadequate (PLG, Consultants. Inc. April 21, 2017 Response to Traffic Approval 18-20 address the transportation control
33-34) Comments on.401-409 AJ'Jerto Way Traffic Study measures and air quality mi tigation measures that
• Furnace upgrade does not {"Hexagon Supplemental :~esponses"), including the would eliminate potential conflicts with the Clean
H~xagon April S, 2017 Response to Traffic Air Plan . The Transportation Management Plan reduce vehicle emissions Comments on 401-409 Aberto Way Traffic Study (which includes measures to reduce vehicular • Electric vehicle charging ('Rexagon Aprils"' Respcmses"). As indicated in the trips) is not voluntary; it is mandatory per
systems will nat reduce ''Overall Traffic Conditior1 s" section of the Hexagon Condjtion 99. All air quality impacts will be emissions April 5111 Responses, the re-striping of south bcund mitigated to a less than sign ificant level; Hexagon
• Restriping Alberto Way will Alberto Way at the intersection would improve Response Letter. not reduce congestion vehicular flow and reduce queuing on Alberto Way.
• Trip reduction program is With respect to TDM measures. please see response
voluntary to Comment 2 in the Hexagon Supplemental
• Inconsistent with 20 l 0 aean Responses. The TIA ana~vzed project impacts
AitPlan without taking into acoount further reductions due to
• Pollutant concentrations will T:>M measures. Nonetheless, TDM is a standard
affect sensitive receptors program for reducing vehicular trip generation .
3
BN 3 1S7:?3:!M
Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment
Addresed (In addition to this matrix)
Water table issues (PLG. 27) See Response to Comments 1-10 to the Geissler DEIR Section 3.5, Geology and Soils and
• Water Table is too shallow Letter and Response to Comment 14, including the ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos,
Response to Comment 2 to the Geissler Engineering California. Geotechnical Exploration Report
• Liquefaction issues Letter and Alberto Way Citizens. Bob Burke and dated July 17, 2015. Rev. August B, 2015.
• Risk of Existing Fill Pueblo de Los Gatos Leners in the ENGEO April 19th ENGEO Supplemental Response to Public
• Boring completed during Supplemental Responses. Also see response to Comments dated April 19. 2017 in Exhibit 1
drought Comment If regarding the borings. r'ENGEO April 19'h Supplemental Responses").
• Possible shifting of See the Applicant Response Lett er dated
foundations due to dewatering September 27. 2017 regarding responses to
coffer dam and soil subsidence geotechnical concerns raised before the Town
• Underground water diversion Council meeting and the November 7, 20 L 7
for underground parking Letter regard ing the design changes in the Titird
• Bottom of foundation of Redesign.
garage wou Id be 10-12 feet
below water table
Water table has risen See Response to 2C to the Las Casitas Letter in the Section 3.5 , Geology and Soils in the Draft EIR
significantly since June. 2015 ENGEO April t '1" Supplemental Responses. Also and ENGEO. Inc .• 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos ,
borings (PLG, 28). No see response to Alberto Way Citizens Comments 11, California. Geotechnical Exploration Report
groundwater levels reported in 2C, 3C. 3 D and the response to Geissler Engineering dated July 17, 2015. Rev. August 13. 2015.
Boring Bl or 83. Comment3. ENGEO April 19'h Supplemental Responses.
4
BN 31S7:?3:?l\'l
Comments Response to Comment Project Document In which Comm~nt
Addr~HM (in addiffen to th~ mRfrll)
Hydrology impacts not revealed • Section 3.8 ofthe Oran EJR evaluated hydrology Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality in the
in EIR {PLG. 29) and water quality impacts. See Response to Draft EIR and ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way,
Comment16in1he A WLC' Letter in the EN GEO Los Gatos, California, Geotechn.ical Expforation
• Adverse impacts on April 19, 2017 Resi:onsc to Public C'onunents. Repott elated July 17, 2015. Rev. August 13,
surrounding properties caused Construction of the parking garage would not 2015: ENGEO April 1~11 Supplemental by underground parking result in any new significant Responses. This issue was addressed for the
• Water table was measured at geologic/geotechnic.nl, hydrology or health and Second Redesign in the Applicant Response
lowest possible time safety impacts. Letter dated November 7, 2017 and for the Third
• Water depth issues ~. The Project will not burden the existing storm Redesign by EN GEO at the December 13, 2017
• Drought recovery issue ' drainage~ because the Projecfs stonnwater Plallning Commission meeting and in the January
• Storm-drainage system is will .be collected ant conveyed through a storm 2, 2018 letter to the Planning Commission
overcapacity drain that nms alonB the western property line. regarding additional comments to be addressed
• Address impacts to swnp near the Caltrans right of way. along the back of prior to the January 10, 2018 Planning
pumps{afso see, BVV 4) the neighboring parcel. PI ease see the attached Commission meeting.
civil drawings prepared by Kier ;-Wright (Exhibit
2), which specifically reforence tbe upsize from an
8" to 18" storm drain pipe in the adjacent property.
The larger pipe is sized to accommodate the flow
'from a 10-yeanain ·~vent, which is the largest
design rain event that the Town's City standards
require pipe inftastt 1cture to be designed to.
• The two sump pumps that wi II convey the storm
water on this Project are designed to convey the
water ofa 10-year storm. Tfthe pmnps fail, the
water will rise in thr. pump's manhole and will
spill into an overflo1.v pipe which ties into the 18'
storm drain pipe that drains offiite.
Likelihood of flooding due to Sec Response to Comment 1 in the ENGEO April Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality in
upstream dam failures. I 9th Supplemental Responses. The project site, the Draft EfR and ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way,
neighboring properties, and the majority of the Town Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploratior..
of Los Gatos ateatl IQCated in an inundation zone in Report dated July 17, 2015. Rev. August 13.
the event of' dam-overflow or failure. 2015; ENGEO April 19\b Supplemental
Responses
5
BN3iS723:!M
Comments I Rts(>09se to Comment Project Document in whirb Comment
Addressed (fn addition to this matrix)
Geology and Soils .
Soil subsidence caused by Sec Response to Comment 2 in the ENGEO April Section 3.5, Geology and Soils in the Draft EIR
temporary dewatering during l ~'" Supplemental Responses. The risk of settlement and ENGEO. lnc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos,
construction (subsidence} due to temporary dewatering is low for California. Geotechnical Explo ra tion Report
the reasons stated in ENGEO's Response to dated July 17, 20l5. Rev. August 13. 2015;
Comment 2 and as further stated by Uri Eliahu at the ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses.
December 13. 2017 Planning Commission meeting.
2 story underground garage in an Sec Response to Comment 8 i!t the ENGEO April Section 3.5, Geology and Soils in the Draft EJR
Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone 1 gd! Supplemental Responses. The project site is not and ENGEO, Inc ., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos.
located within a State of California Fault Rupture California, Geotechnical Exploration Report
Hazard Zone for the reasons stated in ENGEO's dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015.
Response to Comment 8. ENGEO April 19111 Supplemental Responses. See
the Applicant Response Letter dated September
27, 2017 for the Second Redesign .
2 story garage identified as an Sec Response to Comment 9 in the ENGEO Apri. Section 3.5, Geology and Soils in the Draft EIR
Earthquake Induced I 9'h Supplemental Responses. The effects of and ENGEO, Inc ., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos ,
Liquefaction Huard Zone and liquefaction-induced settlement should be mitigated California. Geotechnical Exploration Report
combined effect of seismic by designing the foundation in actordance with dated July 17. 2015, Rev. August 13. 2015.
activity, liquefaction potential ENGEO's geotechnical recommendations set forth in ENGEO April 19"' Supplemental Responses.
make site unsuitable for its Geotechnical Exploration report. Also see letter Also see the Applicant Respon se letter dated
underground garage (and from LARGO Concrete, Inc. in Exhibit 3. November 7, 2017 and our supplemental
underwater). responses provided on January 2, 20 18.
6
BN 1t57:?3:: M
~ Project Document in which Comment Comments I Response to Ccmunent
Addtessed (in addition to this matrix)
In 1he event of an earthquake, ' See Response to Comments 1 I and lE and Sectioo . 3.5, Geology and Soils in the Draft EJR
soils under garage are Jil~e1y to Responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 4, 5, and ENGEO, Iuc., 4-01 Alberto Way, Los Gatos ,
result in differential foundation a"'ld 9 in the ENGEO April 191b Supplemental California, Geoteclmical Exploration Report
settlement with cracking that Responses. The Oeotechr1ical Report recommends dated July 17, '.!015, Rev. August 13, 2015;
would allow influx of criteria for lhedesign oftt1e structural mat foundation ENGEO April lifh Supplemental Responses.
groundwater ranging fi'om SO to ensure that it is rigid enough to span localized
gallons per minute to 500 irregularities without suffering from structural
gallons per minute. Settlement of damage.
l inch or more. Settlement near The project site has been designed in accordance with cofferdam. Reduced capacity of
other drainage facilities. Town requirements. inclllding to the overland release
generated by a 100-:year tlood . which will prevent
water from entering the building and the underground
parking garage. In addition, the Project will drain
storm water atongthe western property line through
an 18" storm drain pipe, which accommodates a 10-
year rain event. Please see the attached civil drawings
prepared by Kier+ Wright
PursuanttoPublicResources Code section 2693(c),
the EIR indicates that the: Project design has
incorporated ihc ENGEO Geotechnical Report
geotechnical recommendations in order to avoid and
mitigate potential seismk hazards including measures
that are consiSb:ntwith e5tablished pract ice and that
will reduce seismic risk to acceptable. levels.
Long-term dewatering required See Response to Geissler Comments2 and l5 in the DEIR Section 3.5, Geology and Soils ant
to discharge groundwater ENGEO April l </-Supplemental Responses. See E;-.JGEO, Inc ., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos,
seepage into garage and cracked Applicant Response Lett1!r dated January 2, 2018 California. Geotedmical Expl oration Rei:oo
slabs at houses in Los Gatos regarding further comments regarding the garage. dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 20 15.
Commons. Bella Vista Village. Et\GEO April l~ Supplemental Responses.
Pueblo de Los Oatos and Las
Casitas in vicinity of the garage.
7
BN 31Sn3:?1 vi
Comments 'i Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment
Addressed (in addition to this matrix)
Likelihood of flooding due to a Pursuant to Town requirements. the site has been Kier+ Wright civil plans on file with the Town of
125-year stonn. Certain death d<!Signed to handlt~ the overland release generated by Los Gatos
for everyone in the garage. a lOO-year flood, which will prevent water from
Chance of flooding during a entering the building and the underground parking
100-yeal" period is 55%. Public garage. As sho\\11 in Exhibit 2, a ridge at the top of
safety at risk. the ramp that descends into the parking garage will
prevent any site water, including severe storm water
and 100-year flood waters, from entering the
underground parking garage as the ridge directs the
water toward Alberto Way and away from the garage
entrance.
Likelihood of flooding of garage Per the Town's Requirements, the storm drain ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos,
due to stonn water nmoff during infrastructure on t~1e site has been design ed to California, Geotechnical Exploration Report
heavy rains due to inadequate accommodate a 10-year storm and will release to Los dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015;
property drainage. Increase Gatos Cr~ek without affecting the neighboring ENGEO April l 9'h Supplemental Responses; see
percentage of pervious landscape property. Per the Town 's requirements. the site also Applicant Respon se Letter dated January 2. 2018.
surface and conduct hydrology has been designed to the overland release a 100-year
study of effect on neighboring flood into the Town's right of way to prevent any site
properties. EIR fails to address water from entering the neighboring property, and the
possible damage to neighboring 100-year flood waters will overland toward Alberto
properties. Way.
See also, Responses to Geissler Engineering
Comments 1-6 an:I Response to Comment 16 in the
ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. The
proposed office buildin g will be supported Oil a
structural mat foundation designed in accordance
with the Geotechr.ic al Report. which is rigid enough
to span localized irregu larities without suffer ing from
structural damage . The Geotechnical Report
recommends that waterproofing be conducted by a
waterproofing consultant. The construction of the
parking garage will not result in any new significant
geologic/geotechr1ical. hydrology or health and safety
impacts.
8
BN 31 S7:?3:? M
Comments I Response to Comment Project .Document in which Comment
I Addressed (in addftton to this matrix)
Construction of22·foot-deep s~e Response to Ocissler Engineering Comment 4 in ENGEO. lnc .. 401 Alberto Way, Los Gat'Js,
underground garage may cause th: ENGEO April 191" Supplemental Responses. California, Geotechnical Exploration Report
diversion of subsurface seepage dated July l 7, 2015, Rev. August 13. 2015;
patterns which would cause a ENGEO April 191" Supplemental Responses.
rise in groundwater levels in Also see Applicant Response Letter dated
neighboring property and
I
November 7, 2017 regarding changes reflect in
increased seepage flow rates Third Redesign.
leading to piping failures.
Proposed dewatering and l See Responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 4-ENGEO, lnc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos.
waterproofing mitigation 6 and Response to Comment 16 in the ENGEO April California, Geotechnical Exploration Repon
measures arc Insufficient to 19•h Supplemental Responses. The risk of cracking dated July 17, 2015. Rev. August 13. 2015:
protect adjacent properties. within the foundation mat due to earthquakes or ENGEO April l91h Supplemental Responses
expansive soils and the risk of associated
groundwater intrusion are low; therefore, the Project
does not require lo ig-term de.watering from a
gcotechnical stmd:ioint. 11.1e proper type of
waterproofing will be determined and specified by a
watetproofing consultant per the Geoteclmical
; Report.
Require that all parking remain As with other parking structures constructed in Los See January 2. 2018 Applicant Response Letter
above grade and be designed as Gatos. any risks associated with the underground regarding the Netflix subsurface parking garage
pervious paving to mitigate parking garage will be addressed by providing proper in Los Gatos.
risks. architectUral. Sb'tri:tural and civil design that meets all
codes and Town requirements.
There is no construction plan Conditions 106through 111 require thatthe Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016
and no plan can avoid blocking developer submit t: construction management plan and Planning Commission testimony.
residents and emergency prior to issuance or any permits to commence work .
vehicles for extended periods of All construction 1rnffic routes and controls are subject
time(PLG, 27) to Town review.
Negative impacts not identified Draft ElReva~d potential impactS to public DEIR. Section 3.10. Public Services.
(PLO, 3S) services and determined the impacts would be less
than significant.
9
BN31ST.!nM
! Comments I Ruponse to Comment Project Document in which Comment
Addressed On addition to this matrix)
Impact to area schools is not 4 Pige 3-140 in Sectfon 3.10 of the Draft EIR explains Draft EIR.
insiwiificant (PLG, 35) ''by the impacts to area schools would be less-than-
significant.
Impact to fire and emergency Page 3-t 79 in Section 3.11 of the Draft ElR explains Applicant Response Letter; Response #2 to
medical services not why the impacts to fire and emergency services Matthew Hudes
insignificant (PLO. 36) would not be significant.
Traffic has increased in past 6 See response to Comment 3 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Respon ses set forth in
months; need new traffic Supplemental Resp:>nses. The minimal tluc tuation in Exhibit 4 .
analysis. traffic counts reported in the Hexagon Supplemental
Responses did not tLlter any of the conclusion s.
Revised project fails to address Sec response to Comment 4 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in
VT A funding Hwy 9 & 17 Supplemental Responses. The TIA assumes worst Exhibit4.
Interchange before Measure B case conditions without interchange improvements.
(PLG. 8) '
Revised project fails to address See response to Comments 5 and 6 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses se t forth in
traffi~ on Hwy 9 and Alberto Supplemental Responses. The observed traffic Exhibit 4.
Way which will become conditicns support the assumptions used for the TIA
congested (PLG, 16). Per in accordance with Town policy and VTA TIA
Caltrans. project \\ill add trips guidelines. The Tl A acknowledges that the project
greater than I% capacity; would add trips equal to 1.18% ofcapacity to SB SR
mitigation is required. EIR is 17 between Lark Avenue and Los Gatos-Saratoga
inadequate. Road. The Project traffic improvements would
improve operations compared to existing conditions.
Project will increase traffic on See response to Comment 5 in Hexagon Hexago n Supplemental Responses set forth in
Hwy 9. NB traffic on Hwy I 7 Supplemental Responses. Exhibit4
exiting East Los Gatos will add
to traffic delays.
The curve in front of the project See response to Comment 8 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in
is a sight problem for vehicles. Supplemental Ress:onses. Hexagon recom1Uends Exhibit4
(PLG. 421 eliminating on-street parking along pr~ject ftontage.
10
BN 31S713:!1"1
Comments I Response to Comment Project Document in wldcb Comment
Addressed (in addition to this matrix)
Traffic congestion wiU impact Section 3.1 I Transportation and Traffic address Final EIR, Response to Comment Letter 7;
Alberto Way and LG in a %-mile traffic and circulation irnpacts oftbe proposed Hexagon Re.spo11se Letter dated April 5, 2017.
radius (PLG. 16): need project. Analysis indicates impacts will be less than Traffic impacts would be further reduced with
reasonable ingress/egress on significant. ·The Traffic Report considered the vehicle development of the 74,260 sf buildin g under the
Alberto Way CBVV. 3t trips of surrounding uses in its analysis . In the Third Redesign as explained in the Applicant's
"Overall Tl'llffic Conditions" section of tbe Hexagon Response Letter dated November 7, 2017.
Response Letter indicates that office traffi c to the
project would mainly flow in the comttc r-commute
direction on eastbound Los Gatos-Saratoga Road,
and would tum left into Alberto Way, avoiding
adding tr .. to the eastbound queue on Los Gatos-
Saratoga Rd at Los Gat:is Blvd.
Revised PD fails to straighten See Applicant Response #2 to Matthew Hude s in the Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,
Alberto for safety & on-street Applicant Response Letter dated March. 1 7, 2017. 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated !viarch 17.
parking (PLG. 15). The revised PD Will implement the Town 's Complete 2017 (Response #2 to Matthew Hudes an:l
Street Program. The developer has proposed a land Response #1 . v. to Charles Erekson): Applicant
dedication along the Alberto Way frontage to Response Letters dated November 7, 2017 and
facilitate the widening nnd straightening of Alberto January:!. 2018 regarding Third Rede sign.
Way by over S feet. n1e revised design moves a
majority of the existing curh and gutter into the '
proposed land dedicati<ins as well as the excess right
of way in «der to have a wider and straighter
roadway. Tbcstreetwideningwill allow for a bike
lane and a longcnight tum lane onto Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road.
Fire department facilities will be See response to Comm :nt 11 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in
affected by traffic (PLG, 35-37\. Supplemental Responses. One or two fire hydrants Exhibit 4
would be relocated from back of curb. Emergency
response times would not be impacted by the project.
False Ttaffic Report data (PLG, See Trip Generation di:;cussion in Hexagon Response. Hexagon Response Letter dated April 5, 2017.
38, 40). Letter dated April 5, 2(117.
11
BN 31Si.!l2M
Comments I Response to Comment Project Document in ll'hich Comment
Addressed (in addition to this matrixl
i
Did not consider traffic from St:e Response to Comment 13 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in
475-485 Alberto Way project Supplemental Responses. The 475~485 Alberto Way Exhibit 4.
project had not submitted a planning application at
the time the 40 J Alberto Way Project TIA was
prepared.
Trip Generation Sensitivity See Trip Generation discussion in Hexagon Response Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in
Study (PLO . 39) Lener dated April 5, 2017. See Response to Exhibit 4.
Comment 14 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses.
The trip g.~neration is based on net building size, not
on employment. The proposed building size has
decreased compared to the original project as
reflected in the Third Redesigu.
Traffic fee calculation uses 700 See Respc1nse to Comment 14 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in
additional trips ($615,800 /$879/ Supplemental Responses. The final traffic impact Exhibit4.
additional trip) which under fees will be calculated per the To\\n·s requirements
states the fee that would be paid and Project conditions of approval.
by tenants employing 735
people. CPLG. 39)
The project could potentially See Response co Comment 15 in Hexagon Final EIR; Comments 1-3 ofSanra Clara VTA
increase hazards due to design Supplemental Responses. The Project voluntarily Comment Letter #9; Hexagon Response Letter
features for bikes, pedestrians, proposed to rebuild the sidewalk fronting the Project dated April 5, 2017; Applicant Response Letter
and transit (PLO, 40) site along westbound Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd to dated November 7. 2017.
create a detached sidewalk for additional separation
between the vehicles and pedestrians per the Town's
Contplete Streets Program . The Project a lso widen s
westboun:J Los Gatos-Saratoga Road to
accommodate a bike lane. Currently, Alberto Way
does not have bike lanes. but the Pr~iect proposes to
install bike lanes and a biko:! box at the intersection of
Alberto and Los Gatos-Saratoga to allow bicyclists to
tum left safely.
MM Tl and T2 cannot be See Response to Comment 16 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in
implemented as proposed. Supplemental Responses . The restriping was Exhibit4.
Widen Alberto to 12-foot lane designed based 011 input from the Town.
width. (PLG, 41)
12
SN 31.S7:!3~lvl
Comments I Response to Comment Project Document ia which Comment
Addressed ~n addltion to this matrix)
' ' MM T3 creates a new and See Response to Comment 17 in Hexagon Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 20 l 7
unacceptable impact m 420 & S•lpplemental Responses. {Response 2 to 1'fatthew Hudes); Hex.ago~
435 Alberto Wr; and fails to S1~ Response 2. to Matthew Hudes and Response l to Supplemental &'.:sponses set forth .in Exhibit 4
widen Alberto Way in fi'mt of Applicant Response Letters dated November 7.
project site. (PLG, 41 l Charles Erekson in the Applicant Response Letter 2017 and January 2, 201& .. dated March 17, 2017. There\-ised project widens
and straight~s Alberto Way by over 5 feet through a
proposed land dedication that will allow for greater
visibility on. Alberto Way, and bike lanes and a
1 longer right tum lane.
The Revised Project driveway Sce·Rcspon>e to Comment l& in Hexagon Applicant Response Letter; Response #1. iv. to
.and parking areas are Supplemental Responses. The revi-;ed site plan is Charles Erekson; Hexagon Supplemental
insufficient (PLG. 42) adequate for bus and truck access and circulation. Responses set forth i11 Exhibit 4.
Buses and trucks would not need to enter the garage.
Project parlcing should not See Response to Comment 19 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in
owrflow to street parking on Supplemental &'.:sponses. Exhibit4.
Alberto Way. (BW, S)
Revised Project appears to have I Stt Response to Comment I 8 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in
no tum1ll'ound large enough for Suppf emcnfal Responses . See response above. Exbibit4.
buses (PLG. 42).
Revised PD Garage is bloCked See Response to Comment 20 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in
while trash and recycling is SupplemcntaJ Responses. Garbage trucks would not Exhibit 4.
picked up. backing up traffic on block acces; to the garage.
Alberto&. Hwy-9 or in the PDs
garage while they are present
<.PLG.42)
More jobs wiJl create demand The project involves the redevelopment of a Draft EIR
for more housing and secondary commercially zoned property and not a residential
development. EIR must address project. The project is subject to the commercial
all impaces including schools developer impact fees imposed by Los Gatos Union
and project should contri!Jute School District ofS.54/square foot.
SSOK to 70K per tenant
employee to mitigate school
impacts.
13
BN ltsr-J~lvl
' Comments j Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment
I Addressed (in addition to this matrix)
No construction plan can prevent S:ction 3.11 Transportation and Traffic. and Section Final ElR. Response to Comment Letter #5;
complete shutdown of Alberto ..i Cumulative Impacts address traffic and circulation Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in
Way for extended periods (PLO, impacts of the proposed pr~ject (including access to Exhibit4.
42) Alberto Way during construction activities).
Analysis in Draft EIR indicates impacts are less than
significant. See Rt!sponse to Comment 15 in
Hexagon Supplemental Responses.
During construction, work crews See Response to Comment 22 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in
ofS0-100 will be present on the Supplemental Responses. Exhibit 4. See Applicant Response Letters dated
site at all times, each arriving in September 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign and
a separate vehicle: it is not November 7, :?.017 for the Third Redesign and the
possible for them to all park on Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018
the Project property (PLG, 42) prepared by Buchalter.
As a Mixed-Use development, Section 2 Project Description describes the proposed Final El R. Response #7 to Lener #2. Hexagon
the PD would, generate high use of the site as commercial use and not residential Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4.
levels of continuous traffic that use. See Response to Comment 23 in Hexagon
are not disclosed in the DEIR or Supplemental Responses
FEIR (PLO, 43)
,
FEIR MISSING Mitigation T -4: See Response to Comment 2..J. in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in
Widen Hwy-9 by one Jane along Supplemental Responses. Highway 9 has 2 lanes Exhibit 4.
the entire length of the Proposed along the project frontage. The project does not
Development on Hwy•9 to allow cause the need for further widening of the highway.
safe right turns from Alberto
Way {PLG, 43)
FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-5: See Response to Comments 24 and 25 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in
Widen Hwy-9 by one lane each Supplemental Responses. Highway 9 has 2 lanes Exhibit 4.
direction betv.'een the Hwy-17 along the project frontage. The project does not
Overpass and the 2 lane sections cause the need for further widening of the highway.
on both sides to enable the EB
left tum pocket into Alberto to
be extended enough to prevent
AM gridlock rPLG, 44)
14
9N3157:?3~M
Comments I Response to Comment Project Document ha which Comment
Addressed (in addition to this matrix)
FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-6: S1::e Response to Comments 24 and 25 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Req>onsts set forth in
Reduce PD Footprint by enough Supplemental Responses. Highway 9 bas 2 lanes &hibit4.
to enable the widening ofHwy•9 along the project ftontage . The pnject does not
by one Jane each direction cause the~ for further-widening Of the highway.
between the Hwy· 17 Overpass
and the 2 Jane sections on both
sides (PLG, 45)
No trip generating project should See Response to Comment 27.in ~ Hexagon Supplemental Responsts set forth in
be approwd before Los Gatos Supplementat Responses. The Project -would not E.xhibft4.
Blvd. is widened.(PLG. 261 cause Significant iinpacts along Las. Gatos Bl\'d.
Project sewer crosses The existing buildings drain the site sewage to a 6' Exhibit 2 to the matrix previously submitted on
neighboring properties. VCP which traversH through the neighboring Sep.ember 27. 2017 for the Second Redesign.
property. The proposed building for 1he Project has
capped the traversing 6' VCP onaite. and instead is
draining the sewaae of the proposed lluilding directly
into Alberto Way's 6' VCP sewer main, without
traversing through a neighboring property. Please see
Exhibit2.
15
BN llS723Zlvl
Comments I Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment
Addressed (iii addition to this matrix)
'
Alternatives '
Existing square footage Please refer tc• Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,
alternative is consistent with August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17,
project objectives. (PLG 46) dated March 17, 2017 <Summary of Architectural 2017 I Summary of Architectural Changes and
Changes and responses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O"Donnell
O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes). and Matthew Hudes).
I-story garage has negative The undergroJnd parking garage is two floors below N IA
impacts (PLG 46). grade, not one. The revised design reduces the
footprint of the underground parking garage, which
decreases the required excavation and also allows for
on~site stagin.~ of all construction vehicles, thus
eliminating ccmgestion on the street during
construction. Furthermore, locating most parking
below grade !.ignificantly reduces the visual impact
of the surfilce parking lot and allows for additional
surface landsi;aping and amenity areas. Any
additional risks associated with the underground
parking garage will be l 00%1 mitigated thorough
proper architectural, structural and civil design that
meets all COO!S and Town requirements.
Growth-lndutlng Impacts
CEQA Section 21100(b)(5) Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR contains a discussion of DraftElR.
specifies that growth inducing growth inducing impacts. As explained in the Draft
impacts must be addressed in EIR. the proposed project would not be population-
EIR and they were not. (PLG, ind ucing and would be consistent with the General
36-37) Plan and zoning designations for the site; therefore
the Project W•)uld not have growth inducing eftects.
No Signlficsnt Impacts
EIR fails to describe why the The EIR desc :ribes the reasons that all of the impacts NIA
possible significant effects were that were evaluated in this EIR were determined not
determined not to be significant. to be significmt.
(PLG, 37)
16
BN 3157:!3:!1 vl
Co111111ents
1 Project Description
Revised PD Falls to Address
Reviewability (PLG. 7)
Revised PD Design Features in
conOict with General P1an
Policies (PLG, 46-49)
Questions validity of Cannon
report. References rednctim of
only700sf
Ensure .that new development
reinforces and supports the
special qualities of the Town of
Los Gatos (PLG. 47)
BN 315723.~lvl
Response to Comment l'roject Document in which Comment
Addressed (in additiea to this matrix)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~--
The project ls reviewable in acwrdancc with the
Town of Los Oatos l'vtunicipal Code and application
review procedures j•Jst like any other development
project is reviewable.
Refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,
20 l 6 and Applicarzt Response Letter dated March 17,
2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and
responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D.
Michttl Kane and Matthew Hudes}. Additional
recommendations were made by the Town's
consulting ardtitec.1, Cannon Design Group. and have
been incorporated into the Third Redesign l submission as discussed above.
I j The 700 sfreduc.tlon noted in the Cannon Design
Group document is incorrect. The actual reduction in
area between the C•riginal design t91,965 s1) and the
current proposed <!esign ( 83,000 sf) is 8,965 sf
Cannon Desip Group is the Town·s peer review
consultant retained by the Town to provide an
independent 1SSCS;1ment of the Project.
Please refer to-Atn!icant Response Letter dated
August 18. 2016 aid Applicant Response Letter
dated March 17, 2017 tSummary of Architectural
Changes and respvnses to comments by Thomas
O'Donnell, D. Mkhael Kane and ~Iatthew Hudes}.
Recommen~oru; :rom Cannon Design Group have been incorporated into the redesign .
17
NIA
Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,
2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17,
2017 (Summary of Architectural. Changes and
re.sponses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D.
Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes}; See
Applicant Response Letters dated September 27.
2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7,
2017 for the TI1ird Redesign and the Applicant
Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared
by Buchalter.
See Applicant Response Letters dated September
27, 20 J 7 for the Second Redesign and N01o·ember
7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicac.t
Response Letter dated January 2. 2018 prepared
by Buchalter.
Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,
2016; Applicant Response Letter dated !\larch 17,
2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and
responses to comments by Thomas O'Dcnnell, D.
Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes}: See
Applicant Response Letters dated September 27,
2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7.
2017 for the Third .Redesign and the Applicant
Response Letter dated January 2. 2018 prepared
by Buchalter.
Comments I Response to Comment Projut Document in which Comment
I Add~ (In "ddfffon tn thi" msatrh')
Northern portion ofbuildings The revised PD has rel ocated the building an Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,
should be reduced to 1 story. additiona . 10 feet away from the north property line. 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 1?,
fot a total of 25 feet of setback, including the Town-2017 (Summaiy of Architectural 01anges and
mandated l 5-foot setback. resp onses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell,
Buildings block views of For responses on blocking views, please refer to Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See
mountains. Applicant Response Letters dated September 27. Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, (Summar~· of Archite<.'tural Changes and responses to 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant comments by Thomas O'Do1mell, D. Michael Kane
and Matthew Hudes). Response Letter dated January 2. 2018 prepared
by Buchalter.
Revised PD Features in conflict Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August I 8,
with LG Commercial Design August n, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17,
Guidelines {PLG. 47) dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 (Swnmary of Architl!Ctural a1anges and
Changes and responses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell,
O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See
Additional recommendations made by the Town's Applicant Response Letters dated September 27.
consulting architect, Cannon Design Group. have 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7,
been incc:•rporated into the most recent design 2017 for the l11ird Redesign and the Applicant
submission as discussed above for the Third Response Letter dated January :?., 2018 pr epared
Redesign. by Buchalter.
Provide more project review and The project is reviewable in accordance with the NIA
approval predictability (PLG, Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code and application
47) review procedures just as any development project is
reviewabk in such a manner. Numerous public
meetings. hearings and community workshops have
bter conducted by the Town and the applicant as
summari:~ed in the April 6, :!O 17 Plann ing
Commission staff report.
Plan Deficiency (PLG, 47) Please refe r to Applicant Response Lener dared NIA
August 18. :!016 and Applicant Response Letter
dated Much 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural
Changes and respon ses to comments by Thomas
O 'DonntlL Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes).
Also. the Staff analysis contained in the various staff
reports pre pared for the Project demonstrates that the
Project complies with Town plans and policies.
18
BN315P-3~M
Comments I Response to Comment Project Document la which Comment I ! l\fldnwll On, ~uldifimt m thi~ matrit)
Maintain a building scale that is Pl~ refer tO Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,
consistent with the Town's small August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17,
scale image {PLG. 48) dated Mardi 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 (Summary of Architettural Changes and
Changes and responses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D.
O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See
There is no prevalent commercial architecture style in Applicant Response Letters dated September 27,
the immediate surrounding area, so the revised :W l 7 for the Second Redesign and Noven;.ber 7.
project has.been redesigned to complement the 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant
existing commercial centers. using mission-style Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared
architecture. Tlte Tow11's Architectural Consultant by Buchalter.
has approved tile proposed architectural style as in
accordance with the To\\11's Commercial Design
Guidelines.
Reinforce the special qualities of Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August :8,
the Town's visual character August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17,
(PLG.48} dated Mardi 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and
Changes and responses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D.
O'Donnell. D. Michael Kane and \olatthew Ht;des). Michael Kane and )vfatthev.1 Hudes). See
Additional recommendations made by the Town's Applicant Response Letters dated September 27,
consulting architect, Cannon Design Group, have 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7,
been incorporated into the most recent design 2017 for the 1l1ird Redesign and the Applicant
submission as discussed above. The design Response Letter dated January::!. 2018 prepared
incorporates vnious design elements ftom the Hotel by Buchalter.
Los Gatos and Palo Alto Medical Foundation office
building located on Los Gatos Blvd.
Protect property owner Plea~e refer to· Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August ·1 s,
investments by discouraging A..igust 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17,
inappropriate adjacent dated March 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and
development (PLG, 48) Changes and ttsponses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D.
O'Donnell, O. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes}. Michael Kaoe and Matthew Hudes). See
Additional recommendations made by the Town's Applicant Response Letters dated September 27,
consulting.rctiitect. Cannon Design Group, have 2017 for the Secon.d Redesign and November 7.
been incorporated into the most recent design 2017 for the Titird Redesign and the Applicant
submission for the Third Redesign as discussed Response Letter dated January ::!, 2018 prepared
above . by Buchalter.
19
BN 31572321vl
Comments I Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment
AddrHstd (in !H!difion tn this m~trlx)
To encourage signs which are in Once a tenant and/or tenants have been identified, the NI A
scale and harmony with the Owner will submit a Master Signage Program (MSP)
architecture and the character of that is consistent and complies with Tovm
the Town (PLG. 48) requirements for exterior building and site signage.
Maintenance of the existing Refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,
small town feel (PLG, 48) 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17,
2017 (Smnmary of Architectural Changes and 2017 (Summary of Ar chitectural Changes and
responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D. responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D.
Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes), which indicates Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes ). See
that recommendations fiom Cannon Design Group, Applicant Response Letters dated September 27,
have been incorporated into the most recent design 2017 for 1he Second Redesign and November 7,
submission as discussed above. The Town 's 2017 for the Third Rede sign and the Applicant
Architectural Consultant has appr oved the proposed Respons e Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared
style as in accordance \\ith the Town ·s Commercial by Buchalter.
Design Guidelines.
Careful attention to architectural The architectural details and landscape design have Applicant Response Letters dated August 18,
and landscape details similar to been designed in strict compliance vrith the T 0\\11 's 2016 and March 17, 2017.
the Town's residential structures zoning requirements for the site . The revise.d desi!,,rn
(PLG. 48) offers a generous landscape amenity a rea in front of
the building, facing onto Alberto Way .
Additional recommend~.tions made by the Town's
consulting architect. Ca·1non Design Group, have
been incorporated into th e most recent design
submission which further addr ess the reques t for
similar architectural and landscape det ail s by
pro·liding additional visual variety and br eaking up
the scale on the front fa i;ad e, includin g varying the
heights of the mansard roofS, addin g additional
recesses and projection~ at the front fus:ade , and
providing more ofa wall plane of1Set where the two-
story front wall transiticms to a one-story wall.
20
BN 31S7:?32lvl
Comments 1 Response to Comment
i--~~~~~~~~~~--
. Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated
August 18, 2016 mid Applicant Response Letter
dated March 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural
Changes and re.sponses to comme1\ts h}' Thomas
Small scale buildings with a
strong )'edestrian orientation
(PLO. 48)
The sensitive interface of
commercial development with
adjacent residential
neighborhoods (PLG. 48)
Streng encouragement of a
unique Los Gatos scale and
character (PLG. 48)
BN31S7Z32M
O'Donnell,"':>. Michael Kane and Matthe'\.Y Hudes).
The additional recommendations made by the Town· s
consulting architect, Cannon Design Group, have
been incorporated into the most recent design
submission for the Tilird Redesign as dcscrihed
above and nplained at the December 13, 2017
Planning Commission meeting.
Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated
August 18. 2016 and Applicant Response Letter
dated Mardi 17, 2017 (Summruy of Architectural
Changes and responses to comments by Thomas
O'Donnell. D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes).
The revised Project combines the two former
buildings, tnd repositions it to the-rear setback. The
new building is over 60 feet ftnther away from
Alberto Way than the former 40 t building. In
addition, tfu: tower elements and balcony on the north
side of the building have been eliminated. which
allow for better views and more privacy to
surtoundlng residential neighborhoods.
Refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,
2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17,
2t)! 1 {Summary of Architectural Changes and
responses t<1 comments by Thomas ff Donnell, D.
Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes}. Additional
recommendations made by the Town's consulting
architect, C:mnon Design Group, have been
incorporated into the most recent design submission .
The Project bas been designed so that it preserves and
promotes er.isting commercial centers consistent with
the maintemnce and design of a small-town Class A
office center.
21
b'oject Document in wlllcb Comment
Addressed (in additioll totbb matrix)
Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,
2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17.
2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and
responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D.
Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See
Applicant Response Letters dated Septerr.ber 27.
2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7,
2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant
Response Letter dated January 2. 2018 prepared
by Buchalter.
Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,
20L6; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17,
2017 (Summacy of Architectural Changes and
responses to comments by Thomas O 'Donnell, D.
Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Sec
Applicant Response Letters dated Septerr.:ber 27,
2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7,
2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant
Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared
by Buchalter.
Applicant Response Letter dated August J 8,
2016:.Applicant Response Letter dated March 17.
2017 (Sunmtary of Architectural Changes and
responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell . D.
Michael Kane and .Matthew Hudes). See
Applicant Response Letters dated Septerr..ber 27 ,
2017 for the Second Redesiga and November 7,
20 l 7 fur the Th ird Redesign and the Appiicant
Response Letter dated January. 2, 2018 prepared
by Buchalter.
Comments I Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment
Addressed lin addition to this matrix)
Design to maintain and reinforce Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August I 8,
the unique scale and character of August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17,
Los Gatos (PLG. 48) dated March 1·1, 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 {Swmnary of Architectural Changes and
Changes and responses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell.
O'Donnell, Michael Kane and !\.fatthew Hudes). Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See
Additional recommendations made by the Town·s Applicant Response Letters dated September 27,
consulting architect, Cannon Design Group, have 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7,
been incorporated into the most recent design 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant
submission to maintain and reinforce the scale and Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared
character ofLc•s Gatos by providing visual variety by Buchalter.
reducing the mass of the central link of the setback
portion ofthe liuilding and adding additional trellis
features at the windows on the front fairade.
Break overall building masses Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,
into segments similar to those of August 18, 20·_6 and Applicant Response Letter 2016: Applicant Response Letter dated March 17.
nearby structures and parcels dated March t 7. 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 !Summary of Architectural Changes and
CPLG, 48) Changes and r•!sponses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell,
O'Donnell. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes}. See Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes); Response 1
the discussion above regarding the applicant's efforts in Arc-Tee Response Letter dated March 16.
to break up the massing and scale in the revised 2017. See Applicant Response Letters dated
project reflected in the Third Redesign as forther September 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign and
discussedatthe December 13, 2017 Planning November 7. 2017 for the Third Redesign and the
Commission meeting. Applicant Response Letter dated January 2. 2018
prepared by Buchalter.
A void design which consists Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August t 8,
largely of boxes with applied August 18. 2016 and Applicant Response Letter 2016: Applicant Response Letter dated March 17.
design elements (PLG, 48) d;ite.j March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and
Changes and responses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell,
O'Donnell, M chael Kane and Matthew Hudes). The Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes'); Response l
revised design incorporates visual variety and break in Arc-Tee Res ponse Letter dated March 16,
up in scale on the front fa9ade. including increasing '.!O 17. See Applicant Response Letters dated
tht' mansard rc'°fheight on the left side of the September 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign and
building to create differential in the massing, whil e November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the
preventing ad\'erse impacts to the views of the trees Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018
and bills in tht· distance. prepared by Buchalter.
")")
BN 31S723:?h'J
Comments Response to Comment Project Document in wbicb Comment
Addressed (in addition to this matrix,)
Break facade segments into Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August 18,
modules (PLG. 49} August 18, 201f· and Applicant Response Letter 20 l 6; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17,
dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and
Changes amhesponses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell,
O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). The Micbael Kane and Matthew Hudes); Response 1
design includes additional visual variety and break up in Arc-Tee Response Letter dated March 16,
in scale on the front fa~ade, including varying the 2017. See Applicant Response Letters dated
heights of the mansard rooiS. adding additional Septembe.r 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign and
recesses and prcjections at the front fuyade, and November 7. 2017 for the Third Redesign and the
providing more of a wal I plane offiet where the two-Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, '.?.O l 8
story front wall transitions to a one-story wall. prepared by Buchalter.
Provide a unified design around The project's design is consistent around all four Response 1 in Arc-Tee Response Letter dated
all sides of buildings (PLG. 49) sides of the buiUing. Additional design March 16. 20l7
enhancements and detailing are provided at the front
fa~de of the building facing Alberto Way.
Where continuity of design is The architec:turl.l details and landscape design are in NIA
difficult to achieve. provide strict compliance with the Town's zooing
substantial landscaping (PLO, requirements for the site. The revised design offers a
49) generous landscape amenity area in front of the
building. facing onto Alberto Way.
Integrate the screening for all All trash and service areas on the site will be properly See e.g., Conditions 132-133 of Project
trash and Service areas into the screened ftom ~iew as is required by Town of Los Cond.itions of Approval.. (Note: condition
design of the buildings (PLG, Gatos zoning requirements. numbers may change due to updated Planning
49) Commission resolutions).
Operable windows (PLG, 49)
i
Cpe~able v.indows are not practical due to code and See e.g., Condition 39 of the Project Conditions
Provide visual buffering of on-Title 24requirements '"11ich mandate an energy of Approval. (Note: condition numbers may
efficient HV AC system; the efficiency of which is change due to updated Planning Commission site utility elements (PLG., 49) compromised b:f the use of operable "'indows. resolutions).
Locate transformer~ valves and All service areas and on-site utility equipment See e.g .. Conditions 13:2-133 ofPr~ject
similar. elements where they WiU (transformers, etc.) on the site will be properly Conditions of Approval. <!Vote: condition
be least visible <PLG, 49} screened from ..,iew per Tm\'11 ofLos Gatos zoning numbers may change due to updated Planning
requirements. Commission resolutions).
23
BN 31.57"..31lvl
Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment
Addressed (in addition to this matrix)
Subordinate parking to the Parking is ·•subordinated'' to the buildings with the NIA. Also see revised project submittal dat::d
buildings. A void parking lots in provisiot1 of an underground parking garage. No Maret 2017.
locations that interrupt retail surface i:arking lots are proposed that would interrupt
and/or struchttal continuity near retail or structural continuity near the frontage .
front property lines. (PLG, 49)
Projects with multiple tenants Once a tenant and/or tenants have been identified, the NIA
will be required to prepare a Owner will submit a Ma ster Signage Program (MSPl
Master Signage Program (PLG, that is crnsistent and complies with T O\l\'11
49} requirements for exterior building and site sigi1age.
Additional disclosures This conuuent does not raise a CEQA issue: no NIA
describing work to be :further response is required.
performed. (BVV 6)
The Project will depress Alberto This comment does not raise an environmental issue; Final EIR. Respon se to Comment Letter #2.
Way Property Values both no further resp onse is required. Respcnse#6
during and after construction
(PLG. 42)
ff water is used to control DEIR St-ction 3.2 evaluates construction-related air DEIR
particulates during construction, quality h1pacts. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 and
trucks exiting the site wilt leave Conditkns 120 and 131 address measures to
with mud on their tires, which minimize potential for deposition of dust and mud at
will be deposited in Alberto Way off-site locations. (,\'ot e: condition numbers may
and Hwy-9 (PLG, 43} change due to upd ated resolutions).
t
During construction. the road Couditk•n s I 06 through I l l require that the DEIR
beds of Alberto Way and Hwy-9 developc:r submit a construction management plan
wm be destroyed or seriously prior to JSsuance of any permits to commence work.
damaged by the fully loaded (.Vote : condition numbers may change due to
concrete trucks (PLG, 43). updated resolutions).
MM T-2 calls for a construction Per condition 105, the developer shall he responsible NIA
contract with Los Gatos but, for obtaining Caln·ans approval of a traffic control
there is no mitigation for the plan for work within the Caltrans right-of-wa y. (Note:
construction contract with conditio1 numbers may change due to updated
Caltrans (PLG , 43'1. resolutic•ns).
24
BN31S723.2lvl
Comments Response to Comment Project Docmnent ia wliicb Comment
Addressed (in addition· to this matrix)
200 diesel truck trips per day for 1••0 constructien ~ould occur on weekends. The NIA. See Applicant Response Letters dated
t to 2 years; some days more Project constructfon activities are designated for Seprember '27, 2017 for the Second Rdesifjn and
with 6-7 trucks. at a time. 174 ~1ondaythrough Friday from 9-4 in order to mitigate November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the.
round trips per day. address peak traffic concerns. Applicant Response Letter dated January 2. 2018
truck traffic impacts due to prepared by Buchalter.
beach traffic. Construction
traffic impacts to pedestrians.
CEQA document needs to be The modificatiom; described above are feasible and March 17, 2017 letter and Final EfR .. See
revised and recirculated. represent minor revisions and clarifications to the Applicant Response Letters dated September '27,
overall project th&t will not add significant new 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7,
information to the T 0\\.11 of Los Gatos 401-409 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant
Alberto Way. Draff and Final Environmental Impact Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared
Report {EJR). Recirculation of the EfR is not by Buchalter.
required because·the proposed modifications will
further lessen impacts that the Town previously
found to be leu ihan-sig11ifica11t. Further the changes
incorporated into the Project would not involve a new
significant environmental impact, a substantial
increase in the se-1erity of a prior environmental
impact, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative
that we declined to adopt and that will clearly lessen
any project impacts. No information provided in this
submittal lndic:aWs that the Draft EIR was inadequate
or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a
meaningful opportunity to review and comment on
theEIR.
Project negatively impacts senior This comment does not raise a CEQA issue: no Final El R. response to Comm ent Lettc-r #~
citizens who reside in the further response is required. Response #6
neighborhood (LGC, p. S). Fails
to compensate damaged sellers
due to lower property values.
(PLO, p. 42)
25
BN.31S7.:!32M
Legend:
PD= Proposed Development
PLG =Pueblo de Los Gatos Submitted to Los Gatos for405 Alberto Way(aka 401-409 Alberto Way) included in April 7, 2017 Staff
Report
BVV =Bella Vista Villages Submitted to Los Gatos for405 Alberto Way(aka 401-409 Alberto Way) included in April 7, 2017 Staff
Report
LGC = Los Gatos Commons Submitted to Los Gatos for 405 Alberto Way (aka 401-409 Alberto Way) included in April 7, 2017 Staff
Report
26
BN31H:m1v1
Buchalter
September 27. 2017
VIA E-MAIL
Mayor Sayne and Councilmcmbers
Los Gatos Town Council
l l 0 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 9503 1
G3 Socond Strool
Suite 1700
San Franclsoo. CA 94105
415.227.0900 Pllone
415.227.0770 FEP<
Filo Numxr: l4342'-0002
~ 15.227.3508 Direct
aguarrll@buct1111ter.com
Re: 401-409 Alberto Way-Architecture and Site Application S-.15-056, Conditional Lise
Permit Application U-15~009, and Environmental Impact Report EIR-16-001.
Property Owner: CWA Realty. Applicant/Appellant: LP Acquisitions, LLC.
Appeal of a Planning Commission Denial of Request to Demolish Three Existing
Office Buildings and Construct a New, 2-S tory Office Building with Below Grade
and At-Crude Parking on Property Zoned CH. APN 529-23-0l 8.
Dcnr Muyor Sayoc and Members of the Town Council .•
Buchalter represents LP Acquisitions, the developer of the project located at 401-409
Albc110 Way in r ,os Gatos ("Alberto Way Project" or "Project").
First, on behalf of my client, we Lhank you for considering the Alberto Way Project and
our request that you ovenum the Planning Commission 's denial of the Project approval s as
n:forcncl.'<i above.
Secondly, at your meeting of September 19, 2017, the Los Gatos Town Council closed
the public hearing but invited the applicant and the public to submit written comments for the
Council's consideration at its upcoming meeting of October 3, 2017 concerning the Project.
Accordingly, the purpose of this letter is to address scvcrnl key ~omments that were submitted to
you as desk items or that were made at the September 19 111 Council Meeting in an ctfo11 to
address any remaining questions about the Project in a nticipation of your deliberations at next
week's meeting.
Hl'i 31 OC)tl566v I
buchalter.com
Los A n~Jeles
Napa Valley
Ornngc-County
Sacramenlo
San Franci sc o
Scottsdale
Buchalter
Mayor Suyoc and Councilmcmbcrs
September 27, 2017
Page 2
No new comments were submitted that undermine the adequacy of the EIR or the
Project approvals.
Importanlly, all orthe comments l>ubmittcd lust week opposing the Project arc the same
comments that cornmcntcrs opposing the Project submitt~ to the Town in August 2016, and in
March 2017, April 2017, and again, in May 2017. Many of these arc the same comments
presented at the May 10, 201? Planning Commission meding. None o I' the comment letter:s·
included in the September 14, 2017 Staff Report and none of the desk items submittt.:d on
September 19 111 contain any new comments or any infom1ation indicating that the Projet'.l would
result in new significant environmental impacts, and specifically any impacts related to
hydrology, geology, traffic (sec Exhibit A), aesthetic and visual impacts. As we stated in our
May 9. 2017 kiter to Jennifer Armer, when an agency prepares an env ironmental impact report
(ElR), the issue is whether sub stantial evidence supports the ugency's conclusions, not wh ether
others might disagree with those conclusions (sec e.g., North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin
Municipal Water Oist. Bel. ofnirectors. 2 l 6 Cal.App.4 111 6l4, 624 (2013)). The extensive
analysis Hnd infonnation contuincd in the EIR and the Town's administrat ive record
dcmonstrutcs that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that all sig11i ficanl environmental
impacts have been mitigated to a less than significant level, and the Town Council may ti11d that
the Project complies w ith the Town's General Plan, zoning aml Commcrdal Des ign Guidclim.:s
as further discussed below . T ha l finding hus nol changed in ligh t of the same comments that
were submitted prior t.o lhc September l 91
h Council meeting.
If the Council gi·ants the appenl, suhstantinl evidence supports the Council's
Cl~rtification of the EIK and approval of the Revised P1·ojcct.
One commenter suggested that while they urge the Counc il to up hold the Planning
Commission 's denial , if the Council chooses to grant the appeal and ap prove the Project, lh1.:y
asked the Council to rem and the matter back to the Commission. They ul so believe the Planning
Commissi1>11 was not under an ohligatinn to adopt any findin gs or to Cl.~11i JY the EIR in light of
the comments contained in the administrutiv~ record.
We recognize the Planning C'or11mission and thl: Town Counci I have discretion in
applying the Town's General Plan policies, zoning regulutions, and Commercial Design
Guidcli11cs in read1ing a ucdsi on as to whether or not to approve the Architec ture and Site
Application (S-15-056) (ASA) and the Conciitional l Jsc Penn it U-15-009 (C'UP) for the
replacement of'the existing office buildings with a new office build ing. 8ut even discretionary
actions reLtuirc findings and Lhc findings must be support1..:d by sub sla11lial evi<lence as explained
in our May 19, 2017 appeal. As the Califomia Supreme Court explained in the seminal case,
Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. C ounty of/,os Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506 (1974).
this findings requirement particularly applies to dccisiuns, such as thos e at issue here, which arc
in adjudicatory in nuturc. Findings arc ncede<l in order to enable the parties to determine
I! N JI 0•10:'M1~ I
Buchalter
Mayor Sayoc and Councilmembers
Scptcmhcr 27, 2017
Pagc3
whether and on what b asis they should seek review . rf findings arc not provided to "bridge the
analytic gap between the raw evidence and the decision," then neither the upplicnnt/nppellant nor
the public will be able to determine the basis of the agency's decision.
That is the problem here. The Planning Commission was all over the map in terms or its
expectations regarding a reduced project size when substantial evidence showed the Reduced
Scak Alternative wus found infoasiblc. The record reflects that some of the commcntcrs
requested that the Project be even smaller and closer to the square footage of the existing
buildings, bul the ETR determined that this version of the "No Project" alternative would fail the
basic project objectives. While commentcrs and the Commission expressed concern about rhc
Revised Project being "too big,'' 80-90% of the Commi ssion's requested revisions were
incorporated into the Revised Project as noted in the administrative record. For example, the
revised design \.Vould actuuJly be lower in height than the tallest point of the existing buildings.
Similarly, the proposed buildings would be set bnck from the street !hmtuge in a munncr to
further protect views when compared to the existing buildings, freeway, landscaping, and other
developed ~onditions on the property that currently block v1cws of the Santa Cruz Mountains
today from various vant!lgc points . Notwithstanding the evidence in the record. the Planning
Commission never explained how reducing the size of the building by another 9,000 square foct
would re::Jucc the neighbors' couccrns . In that wuy, my client and the Council were Jen to guess
at what an acceptable square footage could be because the Town's policies do not prnvidc any
clarification on this point. Because the Commission rejected the Revised Project even in the face
of suhstantial evidence in the record and findings that supported staff s recommendation to
approve the Rev ised Project. we. re quest that the Council exercise its discretion and adopt
findings in support of granting the appeal and approving the Revised Project in accordance w ith
the Town Municipal Code.
Downtown shuttle service analysis demonstrates further reduction in Project trip
generation.
The Alberto Way Prnjcct includes a Tnmsporla!ion Demand Managc1m,'Tlt (TOM)
Program as discussed in the EIR. The TDM Program incluues the use of a shuttle service
("CAT'" -Community Area Transit) available for future employees of the proposed otlice
building. /\s stuted at prior neighborhood meetings, the Planning Commission meetings and last
week's Council meeting, LP Acquisitions also agreed to make free Downtown shuttle se rvice
available to nearby residents for their trips to Downtown retail businesses and services.
Some 11cighlion; expresscu concern that the use or the CAT wuul<l not rt:ducc Projcct-
generated traffic. Shuttle service is a st nndard form of transportation demand management and is
often used as a mitigation measure to fu1ther reduce trip generation. E).·/ii.bit B contains a
111emorar1dum prepared by Hexagon that estimate~ the trip reduction that may be achieved with
employee and resident use of the CAT to amplify the information previously provided in the EIR
BN J]()CJOS66vl
Buchalter
Mayor Sayoc and Councilmcmbcrs
September 27, 2017
Page 4
and included in our prior written submittals for the Council's consideration. This information
shows that there making the shuttle available for daytime use achieves some incidental hcncfits
for the community.
LP Acquisitions previously submitted infornrntion to the Town regarding the
infeasibility of the Reduced Scale Alternative.
According to CHQA. Project alternatives should be considered when the Project results in
significant impacts. Since the EIR concluded that the impacts 0fthe Original Project could he
mitigated to a lcss-than-signi ficant level that would not significant or adversely affect the
environment, technically, a Reduced Scale Alternative would not he necessary to mitigate
significant impacts. lf anything, both the Revised Projcd and the Reduced Seale Alternative
merely further reduce impads alrcudy found to be less than significunt. Nonetheless, several
commenters requested that if the Council grnnts the appeal, that lhc Council approve the
Reduced Scale Alternative, and not the Rcvist)d Project. As Mr. Lumb indicated at last week's
Council meeting, the Planning Commission was unable to settle on a consistent direction
regarding the rcduclion in th~ size of the projc~t, and at times seemed to suggest the Project be
reduced Lo the siz;c of the Reduced Scale Alternative. Even though we submillcd infumrnliun
indicating that tht~ Revisl'!d PrnjeL.:l size of 83,000 square feet was feasible, the Commission
sugg~st.c<l lhat was not good enough and they denied the Project because LP Acquisitions was
unable to reduce the size of the Project to the size of the il~/easible Reduced Scale Alternative.
One commenter incorrectly stated in its September I 8t 11 submittal, that LP Acquisitions:
" ... has not suhmitted any data sufiicicnt to show that purported additional costs or
decreased profits of a smaller project alternative would render it impracticable to
proceed with lite Project." (Provcneht:r & Flatt, LL.P Letter dated September 18,
2016 (sic) page 4).
E¥:1tibit C~ however, contains excerpts from the letters LP Acquisition:s and But:haltt:r
previously submitted to the Town sini:t June 2016 addressing the question of foasihility of the
altemali vcs. As you will see, this in f(lrmarion explains why the lfoviscd Project is fcasihlc, and
why the 74,260 square foot RcduL~ed Scale Alternative identified in the EIR ;iml proposed hy the
Planning Commission was not foasiblc from a cost perspective. We also cxpluincd in prior
correspnndcncc how the Reduced Scale Alternative failed to meet most of the basic project
objectives in accordance with CEQA. Additionally, because the Planning Commission provided
conniding din::cliun as to the scope of' any r~duclions in st1uarc footage ranging from 40,000
square to the 74,260 square foct for the Reduced Scale t\ltcrnativc identified in the EIR, my
client used the 74,260 square foot threshold as a proxy for determining whether or not further
reductions would foil the feasibility test. In other words, if the Projcd is infoasibk al 74,260
square feet, and if it is infeasible based on the existing condition as reported in the EIR, the
llN 31090566vl
Buchalter
Mayor Sayne and Councilmcmbcrs
September 27, 2017
Pagc5
Project also foils the test of feasibility at a level below 74,260 square feet. None uf the
infonnation contained in E.l:liihit C constitute~ new infomrntin11. For th,~ rr.Rg(11's st~t forth in
Exhibit C, and recognizing that the Revised Project already rctlccts significant revisions to
address the commenters' and Planning Commissions concerns about the massing and scale orthc
Projel.i (e.g., lowering in building height, greater setback from slret:t frontage, etc.) in a.fea.tihle
manner, my client submitted information demonstrating its commitment to work with the
conummity to incorporate further rcdm;tions in the size and scale of the building.
Recfrculation of the Draft l!:IR is not required before the Council were to consider
app.-oving the Re\'ised Project
Snme commcntcrs rt..-quested that the Town recirculate lhe Oran EIR due to new
infonnation that they submjttccl that alleges the Revised Project would result in new significant
geologic and hydrologic impucts, traffic impacts, aesthetic and visual impacts, but just as with
the prior comments, the latest comments raise the smm: issues as the earlier comments opposing
the original Project. No infom1ation provided in the latest round of comments indicuf\!s that the
Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the publk was deprived of a meaningful
opportunity to review and commcnl on the EIR. 1
Furthem1orc, the EJR concluded that nil of the significant environmental impar.;ts of the
Original Project could be mitigated to a less than significant level. Since the Revised Project is
smaller than the Original Project evaluated in the EIR, the Revised Pwjcct would result in even
fewer and lesser environmental impacts than the: O riginal Project. This is also the case for the
Reduced Scale Altcmati vc which was similarly anulyzcd in the EIR, for which the Town
coucluded the impacts would be proportionately reduced. Section lS 126.6 (d) of the CEQA
Guidelines provides that un EIR's analysis of alternatives shall be limited to fc11Siblc ultcrnntivcs
''that would avoid or substantiully lessen" any of the Project's significant environmental impacts.
In this case, the E!R contains information regarding the environmental impacts of u Reduced
Scale Alternative even though neither the Original Projt:d nor the Revise<l Project would rcsull
in any significant L.:nvironmcntul impnl;ts, and even though substantial evidence i11dil.:atcs lhal the
Reduced Scale Alternative would he considered infeasible. Thus, the Project EIR complies with
CEQA and the Town Council is not requin .. ><l to recireulatc the Em prior to considering approval
of the Revised Project, because there are no new significant impacts nor is there a substantial
increase in the severity of the impacts previously evaluated in the EIR .
1 In foct , we 1101c that in it.s denial. the P!un11i11g Commi!!sion relied on information contain~d in the Draft EIR to
decide to deny the Revised Project (hccouse th e Revised Project was reduced lo the sir.c or the infcus ihlc Hcclu ccd
Scale A ltcrnat ive) before they reviewed the l:ilR, just St' rhcy woulci 1101 have to certify the Ellt
13N 31090S66vl
Buchalter
Mayor Sayoc and Councilmcmbers
September 27, 2017
Page6
We respectfully request that the Council consider grant the appeal, certify the ETR, and
consider approving the ASA and CUP at its meeting next Tuesday. We appreciate your
cunsidcration of the enclosed information and look forward to the Town Council's continued
deliberations regarding the Albc1io Way Project next Tuesday.
Sincerely,
By
Exhibits
cc (via email): Clerk Administrator
BN j I 090Sohv I
Laurel Prcvetti, Town Manager
Rob Schultz, Town Attorney
Joel Paulson, Community Developmc111 Director
Jennifer Armer, A~MHjalc Plann~r
H.andy Lamb, LP Acquisitions
Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions
Jolie Houstnn, Berliner Cohen
Dan OrlofC Orloff WiJJiams
Dan Kirby, ARC TEC, lnc.
EXI-IIBIT A
-er
" CID • •
• otO
• ~
r.d • •
~~
.......... ~~XAGON T ~ANSPORTATION (ONSULTANTS, IN<.
Memorandum
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
September 19, 2017
Shane Arters, Lamb Partners
Gary Black
Ollie Zhou
Traffic Analysis of the P roposed Downtown S 11uu1e Service tor 401 Alberto Way
Office Project
Hexagon Transporlation Consultants, Inc. has completed a traffic analysis of the proposed
Community Area Transit Free Downtown Shuttle Service in Los Gatos, California. This shuttle
service is being proposed as part of the proposed 401-409 Alberto Way office cJeveloprnent localed
at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. The
shuttle would be available to the public and is proposed to run with a 30-to 45-minute headway
between 10:30 AM and 3:30 PM on weekdays as well as on a select number of weekends. The
shuttle would depart the proposed office development at 40·1-409 Alberto Way and travel clockwise
eastbound on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, southbound on Los Gatos Boulevard/Main Street,
northbound on Santa Cruz Avenue, eastbound on Andrews Street, southbound on University
Avenue and eastbound on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road (see Figure 1 ). The shuttle would stop at the
Masonic Hall, Town Hall, Los Gatos Town Park Plaza, Downtown Los Gatos and the Walgmens
and Safeway on Santa Cruz Avenue.
Based on the proposed 30-to 45-minute headway, it 1s ant1c1pated mat the shuttle service would
provide 6 lo 10 roundtrip services through downtown Los Gatos between 10:30 AM and 3:30 PM.
Assuming a maximum 30-person capacity for the shuttle, this free st1uttle service could potentially
serve a maximum of 300 passengers (30-person capacity with 10 roundtrips) per day. While most
of the passengers are expected to be future employees at the proposed office development, it is
anticipated th;:it some residents along Alberto Way would also utilize this shuttle service , thus
reducing the number of vehicle trips between Albe1io Way and downtown Los Gatos. Residents in
downtown Los Gatos could also ric'le this shuttle to the Walgreens and Safeway on Santa Cruz
Avenue, and employees on Main Street could also ride this shuttle to downtown Los Gatos during
lunch time. Assuming 20°/t, of aH passengers were induced lo make the trip because of the shuttle
service (meaning they would not have made a trip without the shuttle service), the remaining 80%
of the passengers (maximum 240 passengers) would have made the trip by driving their own car
otheiwise. Assuming 80% of the passengers that were making the trip regardless of the shuttle
service are future employees. and employees travel in pairs (two per car), the shuttle service could
eliminate a maximum 96 vehicle trips per day that would have been made by employees at the
proposed office development driving to downtown Los Gatos. Assuming the remaining 20% of the
passengers that were making the trip regardless of the shuttle service are local residents, and
residents drive alone, the shuttle service could eliminate a maximum 48 vehicle trips per day that
would have been made by residents driving to downtown Los Gatos. Therefore. assuming a 30-
minute shuttle headway and the shuttle has a 30-person capacity, the proposed shuttle service
could eliminate maximum 144 vehicles per day. There would also be comparable savings in
greenhouse gas emissions.
4 North Second Street, Suite 400 ·San Jose, California 95113 ·phone 408.971.6100 ·fax 408.971.6102 · www.hextruns.com
EXHIBIT B
EXl-IIBIT C
Buchalter
September 2C), 201 7
VIA E-MAIL (RSCHULTZ@LOSGATOSCA.GOV)
Mr. Rob S1.:hullz. Town Attorney
Town of Los Gatos
1 10 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, C'A 95031
Phone: (408) 354-6872
Errn1i I: rschul lz@losgalos(;a.gov
55 ScC011d Sheet
5.,,1e 1700
San Franci sco. CA 94 105
4 15.2-U .U!lOO Phone
4 15.227 0770 Fax
FHo l~urnlw.r : L4342-0002
.J 15. i'/17 :J!"lllfl Direr.I
aguerra(g~buc·1a lte r.oom
Re: 401-409 Alberto W11y, APN 529-23-·018 Infonnation Regarding Project Feasibility
As you know, Buchalter represents LP Acquisitions, the dcvclnper of the project located
at 401-409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos ("Alberto Way Project"). At its meeting of Septemher 19,
2017, the Los Gatos Town Council closed the public heari ng hut invited the Ctpplicant and the
public tl'l suhmit written comments for the Council's consideration at its upcoming meeting of
October 2 , 2017 concerning the Alberto Way Project. I understand that questions arnse
concerning the inJi.mna(ion we previously provided the Town regarding the feasibility (or lack
thcreo t) related to th~ Reduced Scale Altcrnati vc evaluated in the 40 1-409 Alberto Wa y Draft
Environrncntul Impact Report ·· State Clearinghouse Number 2015122041 t"Albe1to Way Draft
ElR").
Please find attached for your review and consideration the foll o wing documen ts Lhal we
previously submitted to the Town that spccilically addn.:ss the cost C(ll1 Sid erations aspect of the
feasibility of the Project alternatives:
• Exc..:erpts from the Buchalter May 9, '.W 17 l.cltcr containing our Sllpplemental
responses to address the Provencher & Flatt, LLP ("Provencher & Flatt'') Letter
submitted on behalf of the A l berto Way Neighbors: Los Gatos Commons, Pueh lo de
Los Gatos, Los Cas itas and Bella Vista Village ("Albctio Way Neighbors") for the
upcoming Planning Commission meeting on May I 0, 2017 for the 401-409 Alberto
B'I 3HJ78372v:2
buchalter.com
l o~ AngP.les
Napa Valley
Orange Colln\y
Sacrament o
Sa 11 Franci sco
Srn tt srl ale
Buchalter
Mr. Rob Sd1ultz, Town Attornt!y
Scplcmbt:r 26, 2017
Pagc 2
Way Project (Attachment /);
• Excerpts from the LP Acq uisitions' M~irch 17 , 2017 Re sponse Letter to the Planning
Commission from the Public Hearing on August 24, 2016 (Attachment.?}; and
• June 13, 2016 Letter from LP Acquisitions rega rding th e applicant's comments on the
Alberto Way Drnn EJR (Attachment 3).
CKQA Definit ion of Feasibility
The Cal ifornia Envimnmcntal Quality A(:t (Pub. Res. Code§§ .2 LOOO er seq.) ("CEQA")
and CEQA Guidelines Secti.on 15126.6(a) r~uire that an EIR examine a range of alternatives
that arc potentially feasible to a proposed project (sec e .g ., City oflonp, /Jcach ~·. Los Angeles
UnUiecl Sc:lr. Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.411' 889, 920). An EIR is not required to evaluate
infeasible altemativcs pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section l 5 16.(J('a). An EIR is also not
rt!quircd to consider alternati ves lhat do not result in si gnificant environmental advantages in
compurison with the proposed Project. This is true purticl1larly in thos e instances in which tbc
alternative s wo uld not reduce sign i ficant environmental impacts, such as in our case when the
Project docs not result in any significant unmitigated environmental impad:s .
As you know, Public Resources Code Section 2 I 061 .1 and CEQA Guidelines Section
153 64 define "feasible'' as "capable of being accomplish ed in a suc ces sful manner wi thi n a
reas onable period of time. taking into a c count econ o mi c, cnvironmentn l, social, and
t.cchnological factors " for purposes o f complying with C EQA (als o sec, C EQA Guidt!lincs
S ection 15 ! 26 .6(t)). Among the factors that may be considered when addressing the foa s ibility
of on-site ~iltcrnatives are site suitahility, economic viHbility, availability of infrastructure,
general plan consistency, other plans or r~gu l a!Dry limitations, and jurisdictional bmmduries . No
one of these fa ctors establishes a fixed limit on the s cope ofrcaso nahlc alternat ives under C EQA .
14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 151 26 .6 (~1( l ); Citizens (~/'Oo/ew Valley v. Ho ard of Supervisors , 52
Cul 3d 553. 565 (1990). Ecom )mic infeasibility mu st be suppo1i cd by evidence and analy.sis
showing that it cannot r eason ably be implemented, bCJ scd on 11 reasonably prudent stand ard .
Kings County Farm Bureau t'. City off lanfimi, 221 C al. App. 3cl 692 , 73 7 ( 1990).
The Revised Protect (83,000 st)
LI' Acquisit ions reduced the s ize of its Orig inal Project to res pond to the Pl ann ing
C ommi ssi on 's direction from A ugust 2 016 to further reduce the si ze of the Proj ect as di s cussed
in At1aclim e11t 2 . My client's revised 83,000 square fo ot Project which was presented to the
Planning Commission and the Town Council is greater than the 74,260 squnre-foot Rcduc~d
Scale Altcmativc included in the Drnft EIR, and it is les s tlliin the 92 ,800 square foot original
project eva lu a ted in th e EIR . T he R ev is ed Project at 83,000 square fee t with the subsu1ta cc
HN :rnmn12v.'.!
Buchalter
Mr. Rob Schultz, Town Attorney
Scptcm lx;r 26, 2017
Page 3
parking guragc is feasible ·for the reasons discussed in 11ttaclune11t 1. B y cont rast, the 74 ,260
square foot Reduced Scale Alternative is not foasible as explained in Attaclunent. 2 and furthe r
discussed below.
The EIR Reduced Project Alternative (74,260 sO
We submitted a comment letter on behalf of LP Acquii;ilions regarding the Town 's Drnfl
EIR questioning the Draft EIR 's analysis of the Reduced Project Alternative when that
altcmativc foiled lo meet most of the basic project objectives (Attachment 3) required fo r the
Project. LP Acquisition~' March 17, 201 7 Letter i ncludcd in the May I 0, 2017 Staff R<..:port
fm1hcr explained why the smaller 74,260 square foot olfo.:e building surrounded by surface
parking foiled to meet CEQA 's definition of foasibility due to cost considerations.
The March 17, 2017 Letter contained in Attachment 2 focused specifically on the
question of economic feasibility, and explained that when combined wi t h t he land price, the land
acx1uisition cost and the parking strncturc cost resulted in a development cos t of S6 I 5 per
building square foot. Current contractor estimates as ofSeptcmhcr 2017 for constru ction co stR
arc now above$ 700 per building square foot. For the 83,000 square foot Revised Project, the
construction costs result in a total of approximately $58,l 00,000 j ust for construction (R . Lam b,
LP Acquisitions, September '.:!5, 2017). By way of example, one sub-category of costs, the co sts
for the two story underground parking structure.:, an:: estimated at $ 15 ,000,000. Th is is because
the parking garage is very technical to design, given drive ais le spacing and clfo.:icrn.:ies in laying
out the required parking spaces, and lo be ef!icitml, must allow lh~ office building l o sit directly
ubovi.:.: the guragc using the sumc perimeter.
Moreover, building square footage reductions do not equat e to con-esponding redu ct ions
in garage square fiiotage and nsso c iatL'ti costs. This means thnt reducing the building si z e to
74,260 square foet under the Reduced Project Alternative would not result in a compara ble
reduction in the size of the parking garage. Due to the constraints identified in the preceding
paragraph, the parking spaces would be taken out of the surfitce pm-k ing, not the parking garage.
My client is further limited iu its ability tu reduce Lhu gurngc given thut at a 9,0DO square foot
reduction in oflicc space, the resulting reduction in parking needed for the project wou ld be
equal to 36 stalls. The architect, however, is limited in his ability lo de sign an efficient drive
aisle and parking scenario, even with only dropping 36 stulls. Cons~quen tl y , this wuuld en tail a
redesign of the office building, which would chang~ the footprin t oft he bu ilding, thereby li.ntber
incr<..:asing costs. Accordingly, any reduction in building size results in a co rresponding increase
in Lhe costs for the garage alone, on a per square foot hasis.
Another constraint represented in the information LP Acquisitions submitted in March
201 7 is altrihutablc to investor and lender interest given certain indu stry st andards regarding
n.:turn on cost to jusli ty the investment. For ex.ample, with respect to the Alberto Way Project,
BI'\ ~! lll7X .l12 v2
Buchalter
Mr. Rob Schultz; Town Attorney
September 26, 2017
Page4
lenders expect that the project will realize a 12% rctum on costs. This rctum provides the lender
with some assurances to mitigate potential risks and that the lender's funds are safely covered on
the Project. For the 83,000 square foot Revised Project, the return on cost including the lnnd
costs would account for an nmount signifie8ntly he.l ow the 12 % rctum on costs, and with the
74,260 square foot Reduced Scale Alternative. the return is even lower approximating clos~r to
IO% return.
Plcast: Jut me know if you have any questions concerning the information we have
provided rcgurd the infoasib ili t y of the Reduced Scale Alternative. We appreciate your
consideration of the enclosed informat ion and look forward to the Town Council's continued
deliberations regarding the Alberto Way Prnjci.;t nc.~t Tut:sday.
Attachments
cc (via email): Randy Lamb
Shane Arters
Jolie Houston
Dan Orloff
Dan Kirhy
HN 311J7U7.2v2
By
Sincerely,
BUCHALTER
A Profc:isional Corporation
Buchalter
Ms. Jennifer Arm~r
M~y 9, 20l 7
rage 5
Thus , all of the tramc comments thnt the commenlcrn conli ll uc to misc wen.: a lr~a d y
addressed in the El R, the technic al analyses and the prior responses lo comments, includ ing our
April 241h Supplenu:ntal Responses, and there are no n~w significant impacts triggering the need
for further imalysis or a change in the project to address the Project's traflic i mpacts.
New Residential Altcnuttivc
On~ commenter has suggested that my cl icnt has not evaluated a reasonable range of
alternatives that would significantly reduce or avoid the Project's impacts o r cx1>lained why l hc
other altemativcs were rejected in light of the "unacknowledged" impact s raised by !he
commenter, implying that the smalh:r oflice huikling surrounded by surfm.:e parking i11 lieu of a
subsurface parking garage should be evaluated as au allemarive to t he Project Another
commenter suggested that a residential alterna ti ve for an active adult community be evaluated .
Reg arding the Hf R's analysis or alternatives, the EJR evaluated three alt ernatives to the
Proposed l'rnjccl. An alternative site location alternati ve was considered bu t rejected because
the reason for the Project is to redevelop the Project site, and no other suitable sites were
available in the vic inity or the Proj ecl site that could accomplish that same basic proj ec t purpose
as explained in Seel ion 6.3 of ~he Draft ElR. The applicant's further n.wisions to the Projet~t
renectcd in the revised Project were designed to reduce the sizt:l or the Project to !U,000 squan.~
feet to respond to the Planning Comm issi on 's direction from August 201 6. The revised Project
at 83.000 sq uare lcet is greater than the 74,260 squar.! fi>ot Reduced Scale Alternative included
in the llrnfl EIR and lc~s than the 92,800 square foot project evaluated in th e EIR.
Public Resources Code Sel:tion 21061.1 defines '"fous ihle" as "capable of be ing
~tccomplishcd in a successful manner within u rt:asonabltl period or time , taking into acco unt
economic, cnvironmcnial, social and technological factors ." Among the fhclurs that may b1.:
taken into ac\-'ount when addressing the foasibility of on-site altcrnalives an: sit e suitability,
economic viahilily, av<1ilability of' iufraslruclure. general plan consisleni.;y, oth~r plans or
regulatory limitations, and jurisdictional boundaries. No one of these factors establishes a fixed
limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives under CEQA. 14 Cal. Cmk Regs. Section
15126.6(1)(1); Citizensf?f'Golela Valiey 1·. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal 3d 553 , 565 (1990).
Economic infoasibility must be suppoitcd by evidence and analysis showing that it cannot
reasonably be implemented, based on a reasonably prndenl stumJurd. Kings County Fann liureau
v. Ci~l' of/JanJ(Jrd, 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 737 (1990).
The revised Project at 83 ,000 square foct \'v'ilh the subsurface parking garage is fea si b le,
as cxplaiut:<l in my client's April 24'11 Supplemental Responses. A s LP Acquif;itions in d ica ted on
numerous occasions, one of the key project objectives is to build a Class A otlice building in the
Los Gato s nwrkct. Specific factors that are critical to !ht: development of a Class A office
huilding lo accommo<lutc this mark e t ~ector include:
Buchalter
Ms. Jennifer Armer
May 9, 2017
Pnge 6
• Class A tech company users require large foolprints uf35,000 sq uare feet per tloor
and above as de.monstralt!J by the recent approval of the Ncttlix campus.
• Rl!cruiting, hiring and rdention of' employees is extrcrnely competitive in Silicon
Vallt:y and ltugc facilities with many amenities arc the future of high tech
cmploy111~11t oppurtlmitics for the fo rt:s~e.ablc fhture.
• Class A tech users need a minimum building(s) size for the amenities th ey offer th eir
employees to provide the services and folly ahsnrh the costs (i.e., fi t ness rooms. b ike
storage, cafott:ria, Dutside common spaces and large conference facilities).
• Employee health and wdlbcing requires access to natural light as a priority and is
l'acili1ated by large glass linc.s and skylight areas where possibh!.
• Secured parking is a Class A space aclvnntagc for a company by locating tena nt
parking underground .
l{cgarding a smalk:r office building SlllToumlt:d by sur lace parking, by contrast . the
building developer would be unable to provide secured park ing for its tenants, or accommotiutc
the types of building amenities and features that arc im:ludt:d in a Class A office building in
response to market dc1mmds.
Regarding a senior residential community aliernative, my client met with Town adviso ry
officials cnrly in the process t o discuss a residential project for th e site, and was adv ised tha t
residential uses would not be permitted on the property for the following reasons:
• res idcntial use is not a pcnni!tecl or conditionally permitted use in this zoning district,
uncl thus would require a g(:ncra I plan amend ment find rezoning in orJer to change the
land use 011 the site;
• a residential project would impact schools by adding mo re kids to the 'town that
would lead to further crowding in the schools and result in the need to add more
ck1ssrooms :.ind teachers. (Admittedly. an adiw adu lt community wo uld not have the
same impact on schools).
Additionally, given the site's proximity to Highway l) and l lighway 17, u residential
community on the property would be ex.posed to elevated noise and air quality impacts due tu
exposme to vehicular-generated noise and air pollutant emissions. Scnjor citizens arc considered
sensitive receptors and may be exposed lo potentia l re s piratory issues due to th e proximity t <.l t he
freeway. Also, irthe commcntcrs are concerned about the po tent ial exposure tu inund ation due to
dam failure at Lenihan Dam then 1hat concern would be exacerba ted by locati ng mo re residents
in the area as compared lo the prorosed Projec t which would re~ult in exposure of an office
building that is not occupied nn a full-time basis. Moreover, residential uses would generate
approximately 9 Lu JO tl1:1ily trips per unit d~pending 011 the type or dwelling unit, the reb y
llN 2XM l4 115v2
LP ACQUJSITIONS
lliAL EST..\H l>tVCLOl'M£NT
M•~h17,2017 ~~~ ~~s
M•.Jeonife. Arme<,..,c ciat~~~ pl,.~
Town of Los Gatos ~-V'-C> ·~ ) ·-
Community Development Dt!partment
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Phone: (408) 354-6872
Email: jarmer@losgatosca.g ov
Rf:: Response Letter to Planning Commission from Public Hearing on August 24, 2016.
405 Alberto Way
Architecture and Site Application S-15-056
Conditional llse Permit Application U-15-CI09
AP N 529 -23-018
Thank you fat rer.ommending approval of LP /\cqulsltfon's above-referenced project to the
Planning Commission at its hearing on August 24, 2016.
In anticipation of the continued Planning Cornmlssi<J11 Public Hearing scheduled for March 22°0,
this response letter describes the architectural changes between the Original Plan Set (a/k/a
401-405 Alberto Way) submitted on July 13, 2016 nnd the Revised Plan Set (a/k/a 405 AILertu
Way) submitted on March 9, 2017, and responds to the Planning Commissioner's direction from
the August 24, 2016 Public Hearing.
SUMMARY OF ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES:
Since the August 24, 2016 Planninu Commission meeting, LP Acquisitions has been meeting
with the neighbors and Interested parties, and we Initiated a comprehensive effort to redesien
our Project In re$ponse to both the Town ""d nelg~borhood comments and concerns. Based
on the feedb;ick we rece ived from the Planning Commission and the neighborhood, we revised
thP-architecture to lnccrpurate the following key de sign modifications:
We combtned the former two (2), two-story buildlngs into a single, two-story building thereby
resulting in a 9,000 square foot reduction In floor area, and a rPdurtion In OVP.rall heights by 5 .5
feet on the north side and 6.0 fe~t on the south side of the new building when compared t o the
previous two buildings. Other change s Include :
" To illustrate the reduction in the buildi11g mass ing and size, the original design was
1,614,290 cubic feet ("cf") and the pm p o sed redesign is 1,207, 665 cf. l'herefore, we
reduced the bulk.ling size by 25%.
535 Mld c11£•ftt>fd lto ~d. Sui tt-190, Menl u l'ark, t'A 94025 I 650.326 .1600
APPLICANT RESPONSE LEITER
• We relocated the office buildlnH to the rear of the site, against the setback lines on
Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd . (Route 9) and the on-ramp to Highway 17. This accomplishes
two very important eoals: 1) allows for significantly more open space 011 the Alberto
Way front;.ige to the building, which ls utilized for additional surface pa rk ing and
amenity spar.e, and 2) enhance thP. views of the exlstlng trees and mountalm bl!h\nd the
building, when viewed from the prnperties on the other side of Alberto Way.
" We shifted the building by an addition a! 10 feet away from the north property line, in
response to concerns from the Las Casitas neighbors which borders the Applicant 's
property to the north.
The reduced building size, along with a reduced parking rntio of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet
uf building area, results ln a 58-space reduction in the uv~rall parking count from 390 pi!rking
spaces to 332 parking spaces. In re sp onse 10 the Tuwn and neighborhood concerns regarding
the former desiGn's lack of surface parking, we increased the surface parking count from 7 to 42
parking spaces. The overa II parking reduction also results in a significant reduct ion in size of the
underground parking garage (whlch we retained) thereby accommodating all construction
staeing on site, instead of in th~ street.
We replaced the proposed building foundation with a concrete supt:r5tructure In order to
significantly reduce the building height by 5.5 feet on the north side and 6.0 feet on the south
side. Consequently, the revised building footprint preserves the views of the existing trees and
mountains behind the building, when viewed from the properties on the other side of Alberto
Way.
We also eliminated the tower elements in response to the Planning Commission ;i nd neighbors'
concerns that the elements were too prominent, and we eliminated the sec<md -floor e><terior
balcony on the north (Las Casitas) .side of the building. All second-floor e1<terior balcon ies now
face Alberto Way thereby enh an ci ng thP. design hie r archy of the bui lding to create more
definition between the ~round and sewnd floor design elements. LP Acquisitions retnined the
Mission style architectwe which maintains the small -town flavor of other, nearby commercial
developments in Los Gatos and resembles the massing and scale of the other existing buildings
in the immediate neighborhood.
Lastly, and in response to both the Town an d neighbor concerns with respect to traffic ancJ
safety on Alberto w~v. cmd consistent with the Town's Complete Street Ordinance, we are
proposing to dedicate ~ portion of the site for the purpose of widening and straig htening
Alberto Way, allowing for the addition of bofh a bike lane in front of the property and an
extended right turn lane onto Saratoga-Los Gatos Road ~Route 9). We have identified locations
for detached sidewalk improvemP.nts on both the Alberto Way and Sar<itoea-Los Gatos Road
(Route 9) street frontages, and are proposing to install new curb, ramps and crosswalk at the
Saratoga-Los Gato s Road (noute 9) to the liighwuy l7 on ramp.
We have addressed the Town's and neighbors ' concerns reg11rding the project through the
design modifications summarized above •ind further discus.'ird in ARC TEC's letter dated March
2
[ I)ACQUfSJT lCJ NS
,J •. R~Al. [S·rj\rF DEV~l .OPl\'\ENT
November 7, 2017
Ms. Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos
Co m munity Development Department
HOE. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Phone: (408) 354·6872
Email: jnrmer@losgatosca.gov
RE: 405 Alberto Way
Architecture and Site Applic:ation S-15-056
Conditional Use Permit Application IJ-15-009
APN 529-2.3 -018
Thank you for scheduling the above-referenced rroject for the upcoming Planning Commission
hearing on December J.3, 2017. We are pleased to submit our revised plans for 405 Alberto
Way in response to the Town Council's direction from its October 3, 2017 meeting.
PROJECT STATUS
LP Acquisitions, LLC submitt~d the following applications: Architect11rc nnd Site Application 2-
15-056, Conditional Use Permit Application U-1.5 -009, nnd E1wironmental Impact Report EIR-16 ·
001 for a request to demolish three existing office buildings and the developrn ent of a new,
two-story office building with below-grade and at-grncle parking (the ''Project") on the property
formerly identified ns 401 409 Alberto Way (405 Alberto Wc:iy) (the "Site").
During the Plann ing Commission's review of the Project, we made quite a few design changes
to address the Commission's and publlc's comments. Suell changes were wnsidered highlights
and were rece ived positively by th e Plnnning Commission . For examµle, we replaced the
proposed building foundation with a r:oncrete stiperstructur e in order to significantly reduce
the I.wilding height by 5.5 feet on the north side and 6.0 fe~t on the south side.
We also elirninc:itecl tlte tower elements in response to the Planning Co mmissio n ancl neighbors'
concerns that the el ements were too prominent, <i nd we elhninrited t he second-floor exterior
balcony on the north (Las Casitas) side of the building. All seco nd-floor exterior b.a fc:onie s face
Alberto W ay thereby enhancing the d es ign hi er ard1y of the building to create more defi nition
between tht' ground and second floor cfosign elements. LP /\cquisitions retai 1wd the Mission
stylP. architecture which maintains the small-town feel of other, nearby commercial
developments in Los Gcitos and resembles the massing focus on the grol!nd floor and the
hu man scale of the other e><istlng b uildi ngs in the i rnrne d iate 11eiehbo rhoocl.
535 Middlef1~lrl Road, su:tc ·100. Men:o Pi.Irk, Cf, 9402~ I f-iSO.:W•. 1 Gfl(l
t\PPLl(/\NT RESPOf\JSE tElTEH
And in re.spon!>i~ to bolh the Town and neir::h!Jor c:onc:erns wi th respect to trnffic and safety on
Alberto Way, and consistent with th e Town's Complete Street Ordinance, we are proposing to
ded icate a portion of the site for the purpose of w idening and straightt:?nin~ A l bert o Way,
allowing for tlit~ addition of both a bike lane in front of the. prop c~rty <rn d nn exte nded r ir:;ht t urn
lane onto Saratog;.i-Lns Gatos Road (Route 9). We identified locations fo r detac hed sidewalk
improvements on both the /\lberto Way and Sciratoga-1.cis Ga t os Road (l\o ute 9) street
front age~, and are proposing to i nstall new curb, ramps and cros swa lk at t he S;-1ratoga-los
Gatos Road (Route 9) to the Highway 1'I on rarnp. ri11ally, we inc.fuel ed tt !;ignal intP.rc.onnec:t
between Alberto W<iy/l.os Gi:ltos·Silratog;:i intersection and t h e Los Gatos Blvd/Los Gatos-
Saratoga intersection to expedite traffic flow and to improve safety.
Afler two years of proc.essing and revising the Proje ct to further reducP. the size of the Project
and provide for these design chcinges, the Planning Commission nonetheles<> denied the Pro j ect
at its May 10, 2017 meeting on the basis that the P.-ojec.t was still too big. Fol lowine the May,
10, 2017 denial, we appealed the Commi!>sion's action to the Town Council to review and
overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the Project. At its m e eting of September 19,
2017, the Town Council <ir.ceptecl public comment s on our appeal and began its de li berations
regarding the Project. While the Council appreciated some of th e revisions and design fea t ures
incorporated into the Project to further reduce the square footage to 83,000 squr1re feet ("the
Second Rt!dt'sien"), the Council ultinwtely decided on October S, 2017 to rema nd the Project
back to the Planning Commission due to the receipt of additional information and with <i
request t o f u rther reduce the size of the Proj ect to 74,260 square feet ("the Third Redes ign).
We are submitting a ·1 hird Redesign of om Project plans to resp ond to the Cou ncil's direction to
further reduce the size of the Project and provide ndditional design changes as fu rther
addressed below. All of the previous design changes remain In the design plans for lhe
proposed Third Redesign .
SUMMARY OF ARCHITECTURAi. CHANGES:
Since the October 3, 20J / ·r own Council rni>eting, LP Ac qu isitions initi<i tecl a comprehEms ive
effort to rP.design our Project for the third time in ff~Sponse to both t he Town and
neighborhood comments cind concern s. BasPd on the feedb<1cf< W(! receiv~d from the Towri
Council and the neighborh ood, w~~ revised the architecture to inr.o rporate the following key
df'~ign modificati ons:
.. We reduced the Project to 74,260 sf in accordance with t he Council 's di re ction and
reduwd the builcline rnassi11e to nr.hic~ve" further redudion in t he size and scrile of the
building.
• LP Acquisitions ;ind ArcTec met with the Tow11 Staff on Octob er 910 in order to obta i n
their input and direction i n the redesign process . As pC1rt of this effort, w e presfmted
the ndditional building size n~du ction, <ind Plnnning De pn rtmP.nt ~t.:iff inrl ic:ilted t h at LP
2
APPLICANT RESPONSE LE"ITEn
Acquisitions' Third Redesign plan would b1:~ consistent with the EIR's Reduced Scale>
Alternative of 74,260 square feet.
0 The proposed 74,260 sf Project would re duce the overall pcirking spaces from 332 to
298, which is a reduction of 30 garage pr1rklng stalls and 4 surface parking stalls. Th~
reduction in garaeE! par!<ing stalls result~• in a srna!ler building footprint with ;:i
corresponding reduction in excavation. The reduced excavation results in
commensurate reductions in the cost of earth movement und off-haul during the
wnstruc:tion process. Please see the att<1ched "Revised Project Gonslruction Export
Det;:iils for 40S Alberto W ~1y which indic<l tes thal the woposed Third Rerle.i;ig11 will now
require ;m estimated !;Q,67J. r.ubic yards of cut rind all c.onstruction staging can occui:.Q!l
site. Ar.cording to the general contractor, the rough order of magnitude (ROM) savings
for e;.irth movement and off-haul alone wou l d be as fo ll ows:
Conc.retc structure sav ings {redu ced SF): Basement+elev;:ited deck+Podium "'
11,517 SF x $45/SF = $ 518,265 savings
11 Offliaul savings (r·edL1ced volume): Basement {5,105 SF x n ft ::.. .112,3 '.IO CF/ 27
Cf/CY= 4,160 CY x $35/CY = $ 145,600 savings
Misctillaneous bnsernent savings (shoring, waterproofing, MEP/F}:
Rasernent+elev<lted decl<+Podium = 11,517 SF x $30/SF "' $ 345,510 saving s
Reduct:d square footage for the Building Shell : Building reduced SF 8,740 SF x
$250/SF = $2,'.1.85 ,000 snvings
With all of the reductions in square footage ond reduced grading and off-haul, the Th ir d Re-
Design would resu lt in a reduction in costs of npproximately $3 .2M to $3.SM.
Consequently, with the rf:!du ctio11 in grading and constniction costs, the Third Redesign
would be feasible.
" Th e lhiru Redesign preserves 38 of the 42 at-grade parking spaces.
• The Third Redesign reflected in the 74-,260 squcire foot building shifts the building away
from the northern property line by an additional 30 feet (56 feet in total, taking into
consideration the 15 feet required setback plL1 s an additional 11 feet. proposed from lfa~
Second Redesign e~1rlier this Sprin3); conseqm~nlly, the adclltio11<1I building reduction of
8,740 sq. ft (83,000 less 74,260) on ~he northern side of the property now provides for
more expansive mountain v iew corridors that will be visible from both the street and
<idjacent µroperties across Alberto W<iy.
• The Third Redesign also creates more open space on the northern side of the bu ild ing
for a large dog park and an amen ity area for tenants <Ind visito rs.
3
APPLICANT HESPONSF. LET'l"ER
~ L<istly, the Third f\edesign repositions the building entrance to the center of t he site
allowing the surface parking to be placet.I more ew11ly tl1rougho11\: the Project site th<rn
under the prior dt:>sign. This repositioning al so cre<1tes more open space ilt the
southeast co rner of the property for an additional amenity area open to tenants anr.J
visitors.
The cumulative design and redesign modifications we have proposed over the la ~l 2 4 nwnth~
are designed to 1 espond to t he Phmning Commission, Town Co u ncil and public's comments.
The proposed modificiltium. described abnve arE:: fe<isible and repres~nt minor revisions and
clarificcitinns to the ovN;.dl project description that will not acid sign ifican t new informati on t<l
the Town of Los Gato5 401-409 Alberto Way Draft and Finni Environmental lrnpat;t Repurl (W:).
This informa tion will not req uire recircul ation ofth~ EIH becau~e the proposed 1noclific:atinn.~
will further lessen i mpacts that the Town previou~ly f0t111d to be less than-sign ificcmt as
reflected in t he EIR's discussion of the Reduced Scale /\ltcrnativc. furthe r the ch;rnges
incorpornted into the Project would not involve a new signifa.ant e n virnnnH:~nta l impact, a
subst<lntial increase in the severity of n prior envirn11111ental impact, or <1 foC1sible mitigation
measure or Liltl!rnativc that we declined to adopt and that will clea rly lessen any project
i mpa cts . No information provided in our submitt<Jf indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate
or conclu so ry or that the public was deprived of a rne<mingful opportunity to review and
comment on the EIR.
SUMMARY OF COUNCii. DIRECT/ON TO THE APPLICANT FROM OCTOBER 3, 2017 PUBl.IC
HEARING
The fo llowi11e summarizes key comments from the Town Counci l t1nd members of the public
that were received after the Council meeting, followed by our response to the comment
referred to as, the "Applicant Response."
Town Council Comment: Provide ;in open space easement/public space (PAPS) fo r both the
rlog rirea on the 11orth side <ind the new tlrea on the south side adjacent to the p <irking lot;
Applicant Response: LP Acqu i sitio11s agrees to provide 01wn spac~! I publ ic space for a dog area
on the north side <ind an <idditionnl new open space area on the s<l uth side adjacent to t he
prirking lot available for use by th1:' tenants and th~~ public/neigh bors on cin infon11 a l IJ;i!.is .
Town Council Comment: l~eduw squ<1re footage 1o EIR alteroative level of 74,260 square feet.
Applicant Response: Please reter to th£! summary of <1rchitectural changes se t forth e1bove. As
indicated in the summary above, th<~ reduction in square footi.lg e is consistent with t he EIR
Reduced Scale Alternntiv0 wntainecl in the FIR. Consequently, the EIH fully evalua ted the
cnviro11mr~11ldl i111pi=1cts associated with the Third ~edesign proposa l.
Town Cou11cil Corrm1ent: u~e Viewglass or simil<ir product to creatf? C!utornatic. dimming of I he
glass in the evening to meet neighborhood light standards
4
/\PPl.ICANT RC.SPONSE LETTER
Applitc111t Response: Tlie Third Redesign includes Viewglass for building win<low tret1 tm ent in
order to mt1int;iin privacy ;:ind redttcP. lighting impacts to ne arby resid e nts.
Town Council Comment: Try to do something with the entry.
Applicant Response: Please refer to the !·evised east elevation. The m ain entry retai ns the
elegant two-story element and canopy over the iYlnin entry doors t o help identify the rm1ln
entry of the building. The entry has been further improved by p rov iding a more symmetrical
look on either side of the main entry element. Erp.rnl··size<i pundrnd window openings Clrf~
located on the grounrl and second floor on each side o f the main entry and t he dimension of
the two-story vertical walls on each side of the main entry are now i dentica l. The change in the
main entry design provides for C1 more easily identifiable 1nain en try and als o better frames the
main entry t h an under the Second Redesign .
Town Council Comment: Recess th e window further on the second floor to create dettiil.
Applicant Response: The northern favade of the bu riding has bee n pulled back one full column
bay (30 feet) on t he north sid e so the window tine is now further away from th e northe rn
property line that abt1ts the neighb o ring residential prop !:.~rty to th e north. Recessed pu nched
windows and trellis features at eCJch punched w indow opening have been reta ined from the
previous design. As the buildi ng is now mirrower when vie wed from Al berto W ay, the
repetition of windows on each different fa~ade element has been r educed, giving the building il
more elegant look and feel from the prior design.
Town Council Comment: Design and build the building to LEEU Gold level;
Applicant Response: The site and building will be designed to LEED Gold equiva lency.
Town Council Comment: lncrc<ise tree si1i11r, in the front to shield the b11ilding sooner from the
nP.ighborhood .
Applicant Response: Plt!ase refer to tile revised landscnpc: plan s. We increased the tree sizes
in the Second Redesign in several key locations i'.llong the Alberto Way side of the build i ng.
Town Cou ncll Comment: Provid P. a c.ondition to allow overflow pn rki ng in the swface lot are;i
ln off.·huc;iness hours.
Applicant Response: LP Acquisi tion s agrees to a condition o f approval allowing for nearby
resi dents to use th e Project surface lot parking spac es after busines s hours.
Town Council Comment: Schedule week ly traffi c: meetings during construction.
5
APPLICANT RESJ10NSE LETTER
App licant Response : The Third Redesign reciute.s the ~ize an d footprint of t he llnclerground
parking structure with a corresponding decrea~f:! in the overall parl<lng count by 34 spaces. The
reduction in the footprint of the structure ancl 1-hl:. rorrcsponding red uction in pC1rkinr, spaces
provides for C1n are<1 on t he Project site to serve as cons tru ction staging, in accorciance with the
Planning Commission's request in the Second Redesign of the Project. The on-site construction
stagin g area reduces t.h e amount of export off· hau I during excavation . Plea se see the attarhP.d
"Hevised Project Construction Export 1Jet<1ils for 40S Al berto W'ily" and "Revised Proje ct
Construction Details for 405 Alberto Wuy which further describe the revisions. Additionally, the
proposed Construction Plan, which will be fonncilly su bmitted for review by the Town Council
during the permit r eview stC1ge, provides for weel<ly constructi on 111a1mgerncnt meetings with
the neighbor).
Fowler Comment Letter: Describe the expected hours for potential t en ants. (Fowler letter)
Applicant Response : The propos~d hnur5 of operatio1i for tena nts in the building are from 7am
to Gpm Monday th rough Friday.
Fowler Comment Letter: Pro vide information rcgardi11g the "h igh demand" for Class II. office
space in Los Gatos. WIH~re is the demand coming from, Los Gatos or e lsewhere?
Applicant Response: The current Class A office vacancy rate in Lo5 Gatos i s less than 1.5%, ilS
indic<ited in the report g1-~11ernled by Colliers. Please St~e the attached "Colliers Los Gatos Office
Cl<iss A S1rnpshot". Such J low v;icr1ncy rate indicates that there is an enormous dern<lnd fo r
more Clas.5 I\ office in Los Gatos. The Tech industry is driving the i ncre<1sed office dema nd in
the Silicon Valley with an emphasis on bringing jobs close to housing.
Fowl er Comment Letter: Explain why the project objectives cou ld not be met by a build ing l ess
than 83,000 square feet.
Applicant Response: We proviclecl extens ive infonn <1tiun in our prior correspondence to thP.
Town exp1'1ining why the 74,/.60 square foot buildin g was determined to be infeasi ble. With
the fu r th er <Jdjustments to the building design and reduction in excavation, we have been <1ble
to substantially reduce the costs of t:0nst1 uc:tion for the 74,260 squc;re foo t building .so t h.::i t it
would be ret1siblc from <1 cost and technologic.t1I pNspPr.l:ivi~ as f u r t he r expla i ned above .
Town Coutlcil Comment: Please clarify th~ Caltrans encroachment permi t process and when
Caltrans will provide input regarding the proposed improvemenb within Caltrnns riehl-of-way.
Applicant Response-In the attached letler dated November l , 2017 (the "Hex ;:tgo n Letter"),
Hex;.:igon summari zes the Caltr;rns 1~ncro;:tchment p ermit prores!;. The proposed w idening of
Los G<1tos-Saratngr1 Rocicl w ith the offsite improvements requested by the Town Council will
encroach on Ca ltrans right· of-way, cine! will therefore requi re cin encroachment permit frorn
Caltrans. Ca ltrans subrnitted its co1nn10nt letter dcited June 13, 20 16 to the IJFIR (~ee
uttachme11t to the Hi:xa eo n Letter). Pursu<1 nt to Ca ltrans' Encroachment' Permits Manual, in
6
APPLICAf\lT RESPONSE:: LE 'J"f ER
order for Caltr<rns to approve the off-site improvement along Los G<ltos-Saratoe<i Road, LP
Acquisitions must apply for an encroachment permit frorn Cnltrans. Once the Project is
approved by the Town Cot1ncil, the Prnjcr.I will ~ubmit ;rn encroachment permit application
with the design plans and specifications to Caltr<ms for its review. In its review of the
applir.;ition, C<iltrans will work with the applicant and Town staff to review and finnlizc the
design plans. After Caltrnns approves the design plnns. Cnltn:iru; will issue an encroar.hment
permit for the c.onstruction of the offsite Improvements.
Town Coundl Comment: Prepare a brief ex plcination of how the tra nsport<.1tio n anci cirni lation
and parking issues were previously fNrtlunted irt the EIR for the project, the 83,000 sf revised
plan, and the rtl<im:ed ~ca,f) c:rltcrnatlve and the 74,260 sf project would not result In new
significMt impacts.
Applicant Response: Hexagon prepared several t ec hn ical letters acld r esslng the Project's traffic
impacts and the irnpacts of the 83,000 square foot buildings reflected in the Second Redesign .
Hexa~on '.s letter to the Town was peer revised by the Town's traffic consulta11t and determined
to be adequate. further, since the 74,260 sqltare foot Third Redesign is co11slstent with tlrn
Reduced Scale Alternative evalm1ted in the EIR, the Third Redesign would not result in any
additional traffic imµacts compared to those previously evaluated for the Project.
Town Council Comment: Prcivide technical in formation as necessary to address the
geotechnical aspects or a smaller building footprint and parking garage and how this was
addressed in the F.IR and subs eq uent peer reviewed geotechnical reports.
Applicant Response -ENGEO prevlously prepared 1.m extensiv~ design -level Geotechnic.Cll
Eva luation for the Project, which was peer-reviewed by AMF.C: Foster Wheeler. ENGEO's
responst! letter to the peer r eview r.om111ents w:~s accepted by the Town and was used l>y the
Town's EIR consultant to support the analysis in the Town's EIR. The EIR evaluated the
geotechnical issues for the proposed Project, and the reduced scale alternative. Subsequ~ntly,
EN GEO provided responses to ptiblic commen ts as a prtrt of LP's Supplemental Response s Le tter
dated as of Mny 91 201"1 with regard to the 83,000 square foot rev ised plan. ENGEO's
comments were peer-reviewed by ~\MEC, and AMEC concurred with ENC:iEO '.s supplemental
response letter to the public comments and affirmed the feasibility of the project from a
geologic: and geotechnirn1 standpoint. Pursuant to its Supplemental Response dated November
1., 2017 which is attached to this leltei·, F.NGEO has reviewed the reduced ·14 ,260 squar~ fnnt
proposed Project, the revised below··grade parking, anci the overall reduced footprint. Bc1sec J
on such reductions, f:NGEO has conr.Juded that thl:! revisions are expected to further reduce the
already neglir,ible µotential impacts to surrounding properties. The geoted111ic:al nspec:t~ of the
Pro ject have been thorough ly ;:issess~d and t h e 11roposed ch anges do not result i n any new
signif icant impacts, and su pport t he ana lysis contained in t h e EIR .
Additional Fowler Comment Letter: Hequest fo r complete informatkin c:i bout water table on
the 405 f\lbe rto Way site and more borillgs.
7
/.\PPUCAl\ll IH::SPDl\l.:.E !.fl I l::N
/\ppl ki:'lnt Re:;1>onse ·· Ple,)se see UH~ <rtt<Khed ~NGEO l\Jovemb er 6, 20.l / Hespo1H l:! to Pu bl ic
Corn rnents. As p r eviou sly sta ted t he design gmuml w <t te1 l evel of J 2 fee l· b~1 l ow existi ng grL1de is
reco1rt 1r11:rndl!d in l hc µro j e cl g eo te c.lm ica l re port, which wa s pee r-revi<:~we d by AM EC Foster
Whoe le r a~ w ~ll as the ne ighbor's en g in ee ring represen tative, Ge is<;le r Eng i nGe rin g w ho
co ncu r r ed with iJ1(;~ reco m men d ed design groundw ater level of 12 fc!fft be low <:!Xi stin g en1cl e.
We~ ciµfH'eci<rte th e Town's co11sid0rntion of our thil d revi sed proµosfil C1nrl l ook forward to the
Planning Con1rnlssion's ac:tln11 rl':grirding ow· Proj~c:I at its Decembe1 J.3, 21J17 m t:ctiirg.
· Si11ccrc ly,
'.
Shrine Arters
Principal & COO
cc.: Handy Lamh
Dan Kirby
.Jolie l-lou.ston
Alicia Guerrn
GilrY Black
Ollie Zhou
Uri Eliahu
Bob B oe ch~
-L· J.lACQJJ l SITIONS
_ RF.AL f.')T1\l"E DfVFLOPMF.l'IT
Revised Project Construction "Export" Details for 405 Alberto Way
Updated cmd Revised November 3, 201'1
Based on !he origim1l de~ign ,quhmittcd to the Town on July 13, 2016, this proj;;cf
rcqui.rt~<I ~1 total of 69,700 cubic yards of t;t1t; lhu s, resulting i11 6,970 truck trip~ m 8
wc.:eks of off lwul. Thl'n we resubmilled to the T own on Marc.It i 7, 2017 urn l lhc wvistd
redesign r eq uired a totnl of 5\451 L'Ubic yards of' t:ut; thus, ret>ulli11g in approximately
4,859 to .5,:M5 lnH.~k trips or 5.5 to 6 w~eks of off haul.
With tht~ proposed new redesign (lf this 1>rojcct, this project wi II now rt:quire a total nf'
50,671 cuhic yards of cut and l!lL~struction slagiJ1g can occur (Hl sit~. Ont; large dump
!ruck ca11 1;arry I 0 cubil: yard1; or 11 cubic: yards (with a small dh1per !miler); therdiire;
4,606 t<.1 5,067 truck trips would b<.: gcnernl~d. Bused on constrncti1)n ind~1.stry standards,
200 ln:Hls a day would la kc 23 work <lays plus a few mnrt'l diiys for the potential (1f slmv
prnductiuu. Therefore. il is rcm:onublc to ~xpe<.:t thut the tohlf export uf 50,(i71 l·ubk
yards would take:: 23~26 wo1·k days, M-F or4 .6 to 5.2 weeks. Jhit1 results in an_11_dgjti.m1al
l'L•dnclion of-1...Y!s.:ek of offh~1!!.L St:t: utlaclt~d haul routes.
In ct1ndusi~111, our prnpo scd size of 1hc structure ha~ 1ww bel!n reduced to 74,260 sf and
tlw be low grack: parking garage l 1<1s al1io been r~~d uccd tno. The re<lt~signcd project is ltlso
rcforr1;d lo as the Em's Reduced Scale Alternati ve. We estimate th at l:on.~truction
expo11/o li"Jwul to bt: approximately 5 weeks, do wn ti-0 111 8 weeks.
'l3S Miclclldicld l~O (ld, $1Ji lP. ·1 ~·D. Mrnln r.-,r k, rA 9402!; I n50.32n.'l l'OO
.r.
.~
~· ,•
r:.•
, .,.. 041 T;' c, ... '"~·
~ll\1Cl~I
,:_ .. , ·~--~··;::,
~·;
l f .l AC Q!) ! S I ~l . ! () N S
_l,; . f~El\I . FSTATI. UE VHOf'MFNT
Revised Project Const ructi on Details fo r 40.S Al be rto W ay
lJ pdated and Revised November :~, 2.01 7
Genc:qil Constrrn:liun Tim~line:
,, Project construction wi!I ocrur in a sing le plwse with construttitu1 co111111~11clne in
surnrnPr :mm.
t1 All construction stap,ine to oc:r.ur on sit•~-
• The constri1cl1011 tirneframe is 14 to J.6 1nonl:hs including all phases from the start of
demolition to the completion of all site work .
e Strict Safety measures will bP. implemented (i.e . minimum ot 2 flag men posl t iorit:d on
Alberto Way during grarli11p, and crmstrni:tirrn, .-incl weekly Conumm ity MeP.t i ng~ open t·1J
;ill residents) will ensure rnpicJ i11gress/egress uf f;)rnergem.y ve hicles on Al bP.1to Way and
open eornmunication of nil Construction processes to resi de nts.
!ill.Q.~.r.a di llli:
" The project will require excavcitlc.111 ;ind shoring tn tu:;cununlldate a 2.-i;to ry 111ulergro11 11 d
µ<irking strur.ture.
.. See atlrid1ed export detilil.~ find route map of dump-truck tr<lve l.
u Thf' General Co11tractor will Implement Du st Control Measures which meet the Town
standards.
• Estirnated ti me line fo r excavation, grading and sh oring is 2.75 111(1 nths .
Underground Ga rage Construction:
., This phase will include dieelne footings, preparing the p<1cl , i11 sta lli 11e dr<i inrige ;i nd
undergrounding, and waterprciofing.
• This phase will also include. installation of refJar and structural ma te r i<ils to
acr.ornrnodate tile concrete floors ancl sides of the parki ng str ucture.
• The top of the µMking structure will be the foundation of the b uilding.
" Our General Co11tr'1ctor will work c.losely with our Structural, Civil and Geoterhnical
engineer~ to incorporate the highe:;t con~tructinn standard.5 to rneet bui lding co de<;.
e Esti1n<1terl limeline f-ur this phase is 4 rnonths .
.(:_Ql~.&..~hell Uuilding Construction:
• This phase will indude str u ctural, floor ing, sk in a ncJ roof.
~ 1\ll connect ions to publ ic utilities .
.. Estimated tirneline for this ph\Jsr. is G to 7 .25 n1011ths.
~)!~JNr;>rk:
" On -site finished hardscape, concrete sidewalk~ a11d pa vin g.
• l.'1ndse<1pe including all trees and plants.
~ Outside n1eeting area arbors ancl dog p<1rk .
~ [stiinated timelini: is 1 to 2 month;,.
Off~!e Wqr_k_;
• Thi s work wil l be clone dud11g the Cor~ & Shell work no tP.d above .
• Estimated tinieli1w for cornplr:•liun i~ co11cnrrent with Core&. She ll.
_{:Q!1lJ.>k.tiQ.!LO f Cons tn.g; ti on
.. This project is estimated to be completecl by late Fa ll 201.9 .
Jun 1 3 2 0 16 ~ii 25Pt1 llP LA6ERJE::T FflX
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DlSTR(Ci4
P.O. BOX l16tiO •
OAKLAND. CA ~4 62 3·06~0
PHOt-ra (SIO) 286 ·5528
FAX (510) 216-5559
TTY 711
www.dot.co.a""
lune 13, 2016
p . 1
S~tlous Drovgllt.
Ht/p ra1-r 1ra1rt!
SCLVAR063
SCL/Y AR/PM VAR
SCH# 2015 12204 1
Ms . Jennifer Armer
Community Developmeot Department
Town o( Los Gatos
1 J 0 B. Main, Street
Los Oatos, CA 9503 0
Dear Ms . Armer:
401·409 Alberto Way Omec. Development Project -Draft Environmental lmpacl Report
Thank you fo~ ~ontinuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Callnns) in
the environmental review process for the above-Nferenc~ project. Calt:rans' uew mission,
vision, and goals signal a modernization of our approach to California's State T'ta11sport&tion
Network (STN), in which we seek to reduce statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
increase non-auto modes of active 1ransportation . Cal trans plans to increase non-auto mode
shares by 2020 through tripling bicycle, and doublini both pcde6trian and transit . Also, these
tergcts support the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SCS), wh ich promotes the increase of non-auto mode shares b y ten percentage points
and 11 decrease in nutomobile VMT per capita by ten percent. Our comments are based on the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Please also refer to the previous comment letters on
this project and i11co1porated herein .
Project Un<lerstnniilll
The proposed project is located immediateJy ~djacent to the northbound on-ramp from State
Route (SR) 9/Los Gatos Saratoga Road to SR 17 in .the northeast quruirant of the interchange . It
would demolh~h the existing 9'.l,500 square-foot (st) general office complex and replace it wlth a
93,500 sf geoeraJ offlcc complex. Access to the project site would be provided vi11 two
driveways located on Alberto Way.
Ulld A.gCllCJ' .
As the fend agency, the Town of Los Oatos (Town) is responsible for all project mitigation,
including any needed improvements to State highways . The project's fair share contribution ,
financing , s1:heduling, implc:ment11tiou resporu1ibi lities and lead agency monitori11g should be
fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures .
"/'ro\lrlt! o ~fr. •11J1oh1~bk. u1lelfdl1 d anti l,//iei•nl lrtu11Por1olio11
11)'srcn1 I<> t11ll11Jtct C'11flf,rnl~ 't c;ontmlJ • and. llwlbH11y•
Jun l3 ?016 3:2~PM HP LASER~l f. I Fn:.< t ?.
Ms. Jennifer Armer/Town of Los Gatos
June U, 2016
Page2
Tra/fit' Impacts
1. This cl~vdopment will add tl'ips greater tlmi one percent of capacity on southbound SR 17
during AM end PM peak hours, so will significantly itnpact the STN and require mitigation.
For example, the northbound (NB) SR 17/Saratoga. Los Gatos Road diagonal on-ramp and
the southbound (SB) SR 17/Saratoga Los Gatos Road loop on·ramp ha\•e existing ramp
metering equipment installed nnd are to be further metered in the future with metering rates
typically between 240 and 900 vehicles per hour, These additional trips will significantly
impact the capo.cities of these ramps.
2. A dosed cir<)uil televisioa (CCTV) comera, ramp metering, and other traffic monitoring rue
installed in the area of the Saratoga Los Gatos Road (SR 9) on-ramp to NB SR 1'7. The
proposed development has the potenti1tl to impuct these instp.llations, particularly the conduit
which runs to the service connections at Alberto Way. Please refer to the As-Built plans for
EA t 50264, 151364, and other relevant EAs and field verify loc:ations of the installations Bnd
connections, as existing conditions may have changed (e.g., r11e rec~nt Bridge Rail
Replacement Project, EA 1A3404).
Vehicle 'frip Redlfcfion
Caltrans encourages the City to locate future housing.jobs, and cmployeerrelated seniices near
major mass transit centers v.ith connecting streets cnnfiguted to facilitate walking and biking.
This would promote mass transit use thereby reducing regional VMT and traffic impacts.
1. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs should be docum.mted with annual
nlonitoring .report!i by rm onsite 'IDM coordiuator to demonstrate effectiveness. Suggested
TDM strategies include working with the Santa Clara Valley Transponation Authority
(VT A) to decrease headway times and improve wayrfinding on bus lini::s to provide a better
coMection between the project and reg1onal destinations and providing:
• Secured bicycle storage: facilities .
., Fix·it bic;•cle. repair Rlation(s).
a Bic)'cles for employee uses to nccess local resources.
,,. Amrmilics, ncl1tias and colmections, incorporate wide sidewelkN
io Showers, cbengiug rooms end clothiug lockers.
• 10 percent vehiclt: parking reduction.
.. Carpool and ckan-f\1cl parking &pacci;.
,,. Tn:msporta.tion 11nd c;ommute information kiosk.
• Outdoor patlos, outdoor areas, furniture, pedestrian pathwtlys, picnic and rccreo.lionel
a(eas.
• Nearby walknble amenities.
,. Membership in i'I transportation ma.nagc1nent association.
• Kick-off commuter event at full occup!tncy.
.. Employee transportation coordinator.
• Tran~it subsidies and/or transit passes to all ~mployees.
* Emergency Ride Home program.
'Pw•·ilk "sq_liz. JJ••l<tll'U61• lnfoJfhlf~d Plld ~(/i•i•••I ll"tlTJSf'•'IU//(Jll .<)''""' ro e"hanc~ Cali/ornlo) t~o;romy anii IM'rlhlftr;;• ·
J un 13 ?.OI S ~:25PM I-IP Ul ~t'RJET F A X
Ms. Jennifer AnnerlTown of l.os Gato s
J\Hle JJ, 2016
Psge3
~ l 'ransit and trip planning resources.
·• Carpool llhd wnpool ride·matcbing support .
• Bicycle route mappini re.sources and .JncentMze bicycle parking, t1nbut1dlin& of
;esidential parkir'.g, llnd provid ing transit pa >ses and/o~ transit subsidies 10 rei;idcnts.
These sma.it growth approaches are consistent with the MTC's Regional Transp(lrtation
Plan/SCS goals and wou ld meet Caltrans Strategic Management Plan.
p .3
Z. The pxojcct will i.nc;rease pedeitrian demand and proposes to reconstrnct the curb ramps 11nd
sidewalks, as well as stripe a new crosswalk, at the eastbound Sarutoga Los Gatos Road to
the NB SR 17 on·ramp. Caltrans recommends the new crosswalk consist ofhigh·viaibility,
IaddeMtylc markings. The project developer should also coordinate with Caltrans a11d the
Town to provide a rectangular rapid flash ing beacon at this location. in order to increase
motorist awareness of pedestTians crossing the roadway.
3 . The prQject proposes to provide 395 parking spaces, althouglt a development of this scale and
scope is required to provide 372 spaces according ro the Tovm's municipal code. In order to
discourage driving, lhereby reducing VMf and impacts to the STN, we recommend that the
proj~ct consider a reduction in parking supply. R.cdticing parking supply can encourage
alternate forms of t(a.t1Sportation, reduce regional VMT, and lessen future traffic impacts on
SR 17, SR:9, and the STN. Please refer to "Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart
Growth," a MTC study funded hy Coltrans, for sample parking ratios and strategies that
support compact growth.
Traffic /ntpact Fees
Oi\·en the project'!! contributio11 to area traffic and its proximl1y to SR l 7 and SR 9, the project
should contribute fair shan: traffic impact fees to the planned SR 17 ramp metering , future
auxiliary lanes, and other improvements to SR 17 and SR 9 to mitigate these impac1s. These
contributions would be used to lessen future traffic congestion and improve transit in the project
vici11ity.
Vol1mtarj' Co1ttrl6utlon Program
We encourage the City to partici1>atc h1 the VTA 's voluntary c:o21tribution program and plan for
1l1e impact of future srowth on the regional transportation system. For ex11.mple, VTA is
interested in studying the SR 17 corridor and securing funding for the study. Contributions by the
City funding regional trenepartetion prognu-ns would improve the transportation system by
reducing conge~tion and improving mobility on major roadwf.lys throughout the San Francisco
Bay Area.
Traffic Contl'ol P/a,,
Since it is anticipated that vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic will be impacted during the
con5truction of the proposed project requiring traffic restrictions and de lours. a Caltrans-
approved Traffic Control Plan (TCP) is required to nvoi.d projoct-i:eJated impacts to !he STN . The
TCP tDust also comply with the requirements of corres ponding jurisdictions. In addition,
pedestrian access through the construction zone mu st be in acco1-dancc: with the Americans with
·h~11dt• a '~~-. J•mol~o611. lllUJNll1uJ o•tl tfflcl4nt lr"'1Sp«Wl<Jn
Jy11~m lo t11lt!t•cc Colf/oi.,,;,, '1 te<N1 0111r •11d /11a/Jlill)••
Jun 13 2016 3 1 25 PM HP LflSERJET F nx
Ms. Jenniter Anner/Town ofl.os Gatos
June 13, 2016
Page 4
r . "I
Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations (see Caltran.s' Temporary Pedestrian Facilities Hfl11dhook for
maintaining pedestrian access and meeting ADA requirements during construction at:
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/conlltruc/safety/Tcmporary __ Pedesb:ian_Facilities_Handbook.pdf) (.see also
Caltrans' Traffic Operations Policy Directive 11-01 "Accommodating Bicycli:ils in Temporary
Traffic Cvnuol Zones" at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/t:raffops/policy/l l -Ol.pdf). All curb ramps and
pedestrian facilities located within the limits of the project are requhed to be brought up to
current ADA standards as part of this project.
For further TCP assistance, please contact th.e Cflltrans District 4 Office of Traffic Managem<'mt
OperationR at (510) 286-4579. Further traffic management information is available t.t the
following website:
ww\v.dot.ca .gov/hq /traffops.'tnifmgmt/lmp __ Jcsiindex .htm.
E11croacl1me11t Permit
Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the Sta.le right·of-way
(ROW} requirei; an encroachment permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, a completed
encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly
indicating State ROW must be submitted to: David Solloday, District Officl." Chief. Office of
Permits, California Depal1ment of Transportation, District 4, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA
94623-0660. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorpore.ted into the construction
plans prior to the encroachment peon.it process. See this website for more information:
www.dot .ca.guvA1q/traffops/developserv/pennits.
Should you have any questions regarding thi s letter, please contact Brian Ashurst at (510) 286·
5505 or brian.ashmst@dot.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
PATRICIA MAURICE
District Branch Chief
Local Development -Intergovernmental Review
c: Scott Morgan, State Cle11ringhouse
Robert Swierk, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) •electronic copy
Robert Cunningham, Santa. Clara Val tey Transportation Authority (VT A} -dec tronic copy
.. P.-o,•/(/(' a 1q/"~. JJ(.rlqfr,o/lfr!. t11HR'"1'd fJ1:/ f}/tti1,,1 ''t:.1111-u;dvtitm
>ysr~m 111 "'~"''" Ca/(/~rnfP 4-t(OllOl>iJ' and /1v•blllo-"
~------
SELECTED HEFH'lENCES
1. AMEC; Peer F~~wiaw Geotech11ical Fxploration l~cpo1 t ; 401 A lberto W a y, Lu~ c:ia tos ,
Ce:ilifortii[1; Novrnntwr 4, 2015. AMF:C Project No. OOH449Hl60.
2. AMEC Fuster Wheeli:)r: Geotech11ical Peer F:eview; 1f0·1·-409 Aliu~1tn Wiw, L.m: Gatos,
Crilifornia; April ~~8. 201 '7. AMF.C ProjF.ict No. 084491960.
3. EN GEO; (·1eulf~ch11ic;al Exploration; 40·1 Alber lo W<ty, l.os Gr.~tus, Californirt; .Ju ly '17, ;~o I !i
(Revis!:!d A11~1ur.1 ·13, 20'15). ENGli:O Flroject No. ·12·175.000.000.
'1. r::NGEO; l~e:spo11se to AMEC FostP.r Wheeler Pee:r r~e11iew Commentr;; 401 Al berto Way, Los
G~tn!-i, C:;1liforni::1 ; .J::inumy ·1 ·1, :W'l6. E.NGEO Prnj;:n:t l'Jo ·f 2 "1'75 .000.0110.
b. ENGECJ; Supplemental Response 10 Pub lic: Cornme11ts; 40"1-409 Alberto Way, L os Gatos ,
Gatifoniir.1; Apri l HJ, 20·17'. ENCEO Project No. 12'175.000.000.
SUUJECT TO ATTOJ~NEY Dlf'~EG 1101\J ···Al I OHNEY \IVOl{K I 'l'WLllJC: I
·12 ·175 .000 .000
November 2, 2CJ'l'i
SELECTED REF~l~EN(;ES
·1. AMEC; Pear F~eview -· GEwtac:tmli;al Exploration R'~port; t:.o·r Alborlu Way, Im: Gatm~.
Californir~; Nnvembor 4, 2015. AMF.:C Project No. 008440HJnO,
2. AME:C r:oster Wlleelor; <:;<:lo led mica! F>(~r 1~£wiew; tJQ·l-409 AlbEH lo Way. Lo~ Gatos,
California; April 28, 20'17. AMEC r:1 rojc~ct Nn. 08,l49191'i0.
3. EN GEO; Geoted 1nir~il l::>cplrn-c1rion; 40·1 AlbArlo Wny, Los Gc:1tos, G~ililornla; July 'Ii', ~OH'>
(Hevisetl A11gusl 1~'.. 2n·1s). ENGEO Pr(ljact Nl1. ·12175.000.000.
'i·. EN GEO: Re~iponsa to AMEC FosturWheeler Peer Review Comments; 4(1'1 Alberto Way, f.ot~
C~<1tos, California; Jtmuary 1 'I, 20'16. ENGSO Project No. 12175.000.000.
5. ENGEO; Supplemental Hesponse to Puhlic Comments; 40·f-40!·J A lbc-)rlo WAy, Lo!\ Galo~~.
California; April HJ, 2U1'T. Ef\JGEO Project Nc.1. ·12175.000.000.
6 . Geissler Eni;,Jineering; Hydrolo"y Report; 401-40B /\lberto Way, Lo~ t.iEllos, CE1fifomia 1 95032;
clcitad Mf.trr.::h 31. 2017.
mJB.IECT -rr) i\TTOr~NEV DIHl'C:Tl()N ·-Ar'l'C!HMf!Y WOl~I·: PHODUC:Y
12 ·1 ro.OOU .OOO
NtJVf~mbt:r 6, 20 ·17
/-\VIS ON
YOUNG
lnteHlgent
Real F.~ti'lte
Solutions
December27, 2017
Mr. Randy Lamb
Lamb Partners
535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190
Menlo Park, CA 94025
RE: Planned Los Gatos Office Building
Dear Randy:
2600 Stevens Cre~f: Ooulcv11rd
Suit11200
San Jose, CA 95128
USA
T 408.377.4300
F 4011.913.6913
:ivisonymmg.cotn
Thank you for the chance to write this letter to you with my opinion of cu r rent floor plate sizes for new
Class A Office buildings in Silicon Valley. I have leased and/or sold over 3 million square feet of new
Class A office space in Silicon Valley over the past 5 years and understand what today's High Tech
tenants are looking for in these new buildi ngs.
Today's newly constructed Office buildings have 35,000 to 40,000 sf per floor, which is desirable to
tech companies because there is much more useable open space than the floor plate sizes of the past
(15,000 to 20,000 sf). The problem with the smaller floor plates are the lack of larger open areas
because of the buildings core in the middle. The core would include elevators , elevator lobby's,
restrooms, stair wells, and utility closets, which then would only leave you w ith approx. 8,000 to
10,000 sf of useable space Jn a donut shape. Today's larger plates allow for everything to be in the
core and then have large open bay depths for cubicles and interior offices and conference rooms up
against the core leaving the window line open to everyone.
If you looked at all of the newly developed Class A office product, you will find that 95% or high er have
these larger floor plates (35,000 to 40,000 sf) because they are much more functional & efficient and
allow today's tech company to provide a collaborative, open environment for their employees .
Please let me know if you have any questions and am always avai l able to help in any way .
Thank you,
Gregg von Thaden
Principal & Managing Partner
Avison Young
(408) 913-6901 direct
Gregg.vonthaden@avisonyoung.com
450 West Santa Clara Street
San Jose. CA 951 13
www colliers com
January 2, 2018
Mr. Randy Lamb
~""' .. , 408 282 3800
FM +1 408 292 81 00
535 Middlefield Roa d, Suite 190
Menlo Park, CA, 94025
RE : Planned Oflice Building in Los Galos
Dear Randy:
Co1lier s
IN7UH1 Ar 1 or1A~
You have asked me lo provide a lc\\cr with my professional opinion regarding floor plate
s izes of Class A Oflicc buildings in Silicon Valley. Floor plate size varies depending i f you
arc in an urban selling vs. a city setting. One thing for sure is over the past ten plus years
a ll lloor plates regardless irthcy arc urban or city have been getting larger and larger.
All-new construction I have witnessed in the Silicon Va lley as of la\e has tried to maximi ze
their floor plates given the cost of land as well the loss factor of the building infrastructure
(restrooms , elevators, common area and 'stairs). The smaller floor pl ates (25,000-
30,000 sq . ft.) become very inefficient given the loss factor of the earlier mentio n
infrastructure . Tenants to day arc pa ss ing o n the smaller floor p late sizes. Today, t he ideal
floor plates arc ranging from 35,000 sq. ft. up lo 42,0 00 sq. fl. and sometimes higher. A
larger floor plate a llows for an efficient layout of s pace for employees, cubicles, conference
r ooms and op en collaboration.
We h ave become more efficient over the years in t.hc use of office space. Today tec h
companies want collaboration areas and open environment and the smaller il oor plates
(25,000-30,000 sq. ft.) cannot provi de th e use a nd will be passed over for the larger noor
plates (35,000-40, 000 sq . ft.).
Please le t me know if you m:ed a dditional information, I am happy lo assist.
Thank you,
Justin M . Reilly
Sr. Vice Pres ident
Colliers Interna tiona l
Justin.Reilly(ti>Colliers.com
' '...' ... ,, •••
A
The CAT ("Community Area Transit") Shuttle Service Information Sheet
• Proposed Operation Hours: M-F from 10 :30am to 3:3 0pm; and for a few special events in Los
Gatos each year
Free public shuttle for everyone-available for Neighbors, Residents, Tenants and Visitors
Reduces Traffic and alleviates the stress of finding limited parking in downtown
• Ride for free, shop in Town, avoid parking and support the local merchants
See Shuttle Stops Map for pickup and drop-off locations
This supports the General Plan's Sustainability program to have "fewer vehicle miles traveledn
Shuttle service is a standard form of TOM and is often used as a mitigation measure to further
reduce trip generation
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
y,//dϮϰ
Materials presented at the Planning Commission Hearing on December 13, 2017, by Harold Vitale,
during public comment, and provided for Commission review at the request of a commissioner.
s
a
r
I
l
G
R
d
s
a
r
I
L
G
R
d
0
0A
0
0
0
Fo
0
000000000
000000000
000000000 c
o V
0
0
0
0
0
D <o 8
0 0
0 v
0
0 v
o L
E 0000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000
o v
0
0
0
0
0
FW17
0 0
0 0
00
00
0 o"
o of
< <
Alberto Way
Figure 1
000000000
000000000
000000000 c
oV
0
0
0
0
D <O
OOOOOOtOOOOOOOOO 8
<
0
0 v
o L
E 0000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000
Ov
0
0
0
0
0
~<
Alberto Way
<
Figure 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0000 000000000
0 0 0
0000 00000 0
0000 000000000
ooo A
0
0 Distance ft
A-B 1082
C-B 250
B-0 93
D-E 93
A-L 500
0000 000000000
0 0 0
0000 00000 0
0000 000000000
0
0
oA
Distance ft
A-B 1082
C-B 250
B-0 93
0-E 93
A-L SQO
Atoe 38Sto
# cars Wait Secs
100 412
200 712
Sar/LG
Walt Mins
6.9
11.75
Bek A LGC to LG/Sar Rd 151 Secs
North
Bek A LGC to LG/Sar Rd 84 Secs
South·
'·
Submitte~ }}:,'I the Los Gatos Commons Committee on Alberto Way Development: Marilyn Basham,#P
Loretta i:O~rer, Marietta R~ and the Los Gatos Commons Board of Directors, President Jean Farro'f'"
JQnes
December 13, 2017
The Los Gatos Commons Response to LP's "Third Redesign" (Nov. 7,
2017)
OVERVIEW
Town Council's Decision Is Misrepresented
Architectural Changes Inadequate to Address Several of Our Concerns
Two Story Underground Garage Puts Neighboring Properties at Risk
Positive Changes
What the Residents Support
I
ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES INADEQUATE TO ADDRESS
SEVERAL OF OUR CONCERNS
A Reduction of 8,740 Sq. Ft. still results in a massive scale
not compatible with neighboring structures
The three buildings of the commercial development across the street (nos. 53, 55, 57)
total 31,891 sq. ft. The proposed 74,260 project is more than twice the size of this
commercial development. Las tasitas (435) is 26,054 sq. ft., about one-third the size of
the proposed project. Pueblo de Los Gatos (430) at SS,190 sq. ft. is divided into two wings
and sits vertically on the site. The Commons is a large development w ith ten buildings.
The two facing the street are each about 10,000 sq. ft. Screened off from our view are
475 and 485-two buildings vertically placed, each 28,000. (see attached illustration)
The 315 foot fa~ade is not broken into segments similar to
neighboring structures
It is a massive building with a fa~de that appears flat and monotonous. The residential
structures on Atberto Way have dynamic facades with multiple popouts and projections
that face the street at different angles.
3
The Building setback of 30 feet more than in the
Second Redesign on the north property line does not
preserve the existing public views of the Santa Cruz
Mountains from the north corridor (see attached
111 ustration)
The proposed building has completely blocked the south view corridor of ridges
and a peak-which we have enjoyed for many years.
The proposed building blocks most of our north corridor view. This north view
has always been prized by us--lt is calming and restorative. From the west
sidewalk you see hillsides, ridges, and a peak.
We walk this street regularly-many of us every day-for doctor-ordered
therapy, daily exercise, dog walking, trips to buy a newspaper at the corner,
lunch at the lodge, and trips to town. The mountain views have always been an
important part of this experience.
If you look at the existing story poles on the north corridor, you can see that the
view corridor is obstructed by the proposed building and we lose ridge lines and
the peak. The farther you walk southward from the north property line, the
more of the view is lost.
The proposed building is inconsistent with COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINE
1.4: maintain sense of place with views of surrounding hills preserved
l o
!
1 i,
...
...
• !,:
:I
-· .. ...
Retention of Two Level Underground Garage threatens
Neighboring Properties
We have no confidence in ENGEO's Assessment of Risk
ENGEO ignored General Plan policy (SAF 1.11)
Require geologic and geotechnical reports to specify construction
methods to protect existing residences in the vicinity from identified
hazards
Dr. Peter Geissler reviewed ENGEO's work: likely risk to
neighboring properties
ENGEO's Defense: admits "low risk"; refused to consider Geissler
recommendations
AMEC Foster Miller did not objectively consider the issue of risk
to neighbors. Their letter ignores the points made by Dr. Geissler,
rather than objectively examining them.
I ~
Palo Alto recognizes risk of dewatering : Guidelines for
Dewatering During Below Ground Garage Construction, May 2017
Conduct a Geotechnical Study to determine the radius of
influence (i.e. extent of cone of depression) from each
dewatering well as a function of time, based on local soil and
groundwater conditions. All wells and other dewatering sites
within a 400-foot radius (roughtly one City block) of the
property that may interact with dewatering activity shall be
included in the study.
No two-level underground garages on flood plain in Los Gatos-no
precedent established. We do not think there is a one-level
underground on the flood plain, either.
Property Damage would be catastrophic for Alberto Way residents
WE ASK YOU NOT TO APPROVE A TWO-LEVEL GARAGE. ONE-LEVEL WOULD BE
MORE ACCEPTABLE TO US.
\ (.,
WHAT THE RESIDENTS SUPPORT
The motion by Commissioner Erekson on August 24, 2016: the developer shall
make a significant reduction in size and scale, resituate the building away from
the residents [to the north] •.•.
IN THE DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER EREKSON SUGGESTED A
REDUCTION OF BETWEEN 41% {TO 55,000 SQ. FT.) AND 31% {TO
63,000 SQ. FT.)
The Alternative "Reduced Size" mentioned in the DEIR (74,260) was
not considered acceptable. {Transcript, pp. 119·20)
We residents argued that a reduction of more than 41% would be
appropriate for our street but the motion did not support our
preference. We asked ourselves:
How can this project be built within the Commission's guidelines and
yet address residents' concerns to a significant degree?
/5
OUR SUGGESTION:
BUILDING OR BUILDINGS THAT HAVE A SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE
RANGE PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON AUGUST 24
(55,000-62,000)
ONE STORY UNDERGROUND GARAGE
SETBACK OF 80 FEET FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE TO PRESERVE
OUR EXISTING PUBLIC VIEW OF THE SANTA CRUZ MOUNTAINS
Here is an example of how such a project could be realized (see illustration attached):
SEE ATTACHED ILLUSTRATION
Two buildings (each about 28,000 sq . ft.) placed vertically. The design echos the
Pueblo de Los Gatos and Alberto Oaks (475 and 485) developments and, thus,
blends better with the neighborhood structures.
The 90 ft~-wlde ends of the two buildings allow for a fa~ade that is more
interesting and similar to the neighboring structures.
A one-level garage is appropriate to a 56,000 sq. ft. project, and there would be
ample space for surface parking.
A setback of 80 feet from the north property line protects our EXISTING public
view of the Santa Cruz Mountains (the view CORRIDOR there now)
Traffic Issues
Nega t ive Impact of 298 vehicles entering/exiting Alberto Way
Delays due to driveway congestion near intersection
Driveways from the commercial center at 53, 55, 57; from the
proposed project; from Pueblo de Los Gatos and Las Casitas
converge ,
TRA 2.5 Should restrict development along single access roads
Alberto Way is a narrow dead-end street. This makes problems of
traffic entering and exiting more difficult to deal with.
Problems with Hexagon study
Did not factor in 100 cars from 475/485. The 100 +cars will enter
and leave at about the same time as cars from 405 .
Use of statistical averaging does not reflect lived experience
ITE Manual: data too old; editors admit significant difference
between pre-and post-2000 data (see attached page p. 12 from
manual)
AND This proposed building is much larger than the current largest two-
story office building south of Lark: 750 University (62,750 sq. ft.) on a
wide, busy street (35 mph) and not adjacent to or across from residential
structures.
Please consider the advisability of further limiting the number of cars
exiting/entering Alberto Way.
. .
\
\
\
\
\ .
\
\
.
~ l
:
I
~----t
I
.I.Ts\__ _L
~ ---I
' ~
I
I
!
0 0
.... t
may differ from the post-energy crisis data. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) analyzed
the database from the third edition ( 1982) of Trip Generation and stated, "Based on statistical tests
such as T-tests and F-ratios, it was concluded that there were no significant differences between
the mean trip rates of older data (pre-1973) and new data (post-1973) for all land uses analyzed.~5
ITE staff performed additional analyses comparing pre· and post-1980 data for the restaurant land
uses (931, 932, 933) for the February 1995 Update to the Fifth Edition. Again it was found that there
were no significant differences between the mean trip rates of the older data and the newer data and
that all data points were retained in the database to· maximize the sample sizes of the given land
uses. Prior to the release of the eighth edition of Trip Generation, ITE examined the data that were
contained in the banking land use---Drive-in Bank (912}-to determine if changes in travel patterns
resultfng from recent technological advances in the banking Industry had a significant impact on
the trip genera.tion rates. This analysis concluded that pre-and post-2000 trip generation data
were significanUy different. As a result, all data from the years prior to the year 2000 were removed
from the database for the two banking land uses-Walk-in Bank (911) and Drive-in Bank (912). It
is anticipated that additional I ses ill be erformed fi uture u dat s to continue monitoring
variations based on the age o the data.
Variations in the Staiistics
Variations in trip generation characteristics for specific land uses are reflected in the range of rates,
standard deviation and coefficient of determination (R2) value. (See Chapter 5, ·"Description of Data
Plots and Reported Statistics," for additional details on these topics.) These variations may be due
to a small sample size, individual marketing of the site, economic conditions of the business market,
geographic location of the sites studied, or unique characteristics of the specific site. Accordingly,
judgment must be exercised in the use of the statistics in this manual.
Other sources of variation include different lengths of traffic count duration and the time of year the
traffic volumes were counted; that is, daily and seasonal variations may exist for some land uses .
Studies have not been undertaken to· analyze differences based on geographic location.
Limitations of the Data Plots
The plots presented in Trip Generation cover only the range of independent variables for which data
are available. Caution should be used if extrapolating the data beyond the ranges provided because no
information has been supplied to document trip generation characteristics beyond the given ranges.
It should also be noted that in some cases, because of tJie limited sample size and variation in
the data received, the projected trip generation estimate for the peak hour of. the adjacent street
traffic exceeds the trip generation estimate for the peak hour of the generator. By definition, this is
impossible . In these isolated cases, knowledge of the project site and engineering judgment should
be used to select the appropriate trip generation approximation.
s Kelleroo. Devel~pment and Application of Trip Generation Rates. Washington, DC, USA: U.S . Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1985.
Tfip Generation , 9th Edition o Institute ofTransportation Engineers
, I
Senior Concerns
Half the residents on Alberto Way are seniors (170: Commons, 133; others, 37)
Over 3/4 Commons residents are 70 and over: 1over100; 7 in their 90s; 47
in their 80s; 45 in their 70s; others in 60s
Commons units $524 per sq. ft.-below market cf to Los Gatos, $781 (2017)
General Plan goals regarding seniors
Town focus: senior needs (INT-6)
Vision statement: offer high quality of life to all residents, including seniors, and
meet the changing needs of senior populations (VIS-3)
Seniors greatly influence the character and sense of place on Albe.rto Way
CEQUA policy: Sec. 15131. Social effects may be used to
determine the significance of physical changes caused by a
project. So, if construction affects a particular community negatively,
construction is physical change but the SOCIAL EFFECT-on the community would
be the basis for determining that the effect would be significant.
Traffic: consider "sensitive receptors" (TRA 3.12)
Delays. are likely and could negatively affect medical transport
More traffic makes walking more dangerous : most seniors regularly walk
south up Alberto Way
The View: restorative, restful for seniors: blockage of existing view of
Santa Cruz Mountains from north corridor would be a negative
Impact for seniors (and others)
Additional Comments from Jean Farron Jones, President of Los
Gatos Commons
Petitions with three principles (ress than 62,000 sq. ft. building; one-level
underground garage, protection of existing public view of the mountains from
the west sidewalk) got signatures of majority of residents at The Commons and
Pueblo de Los Gatos
Petition with these same three principles got support from all the members of
the Boards of Directors at The Commons, Pueblo de Los Gatos, Las Casitas.
We residents get no benefit from this proposed development-only LOSS .
Loss of views, quality of life, ability to come and go from Alberto Way when we
want
The suggestion that the proposed building and a shuttle would help businesses
downtown is not supported by any objective analysis or feasibility study.
None of the residents support this Redesign 3: any support is coming from
people who do not live on Alberto Way, and especially from developers and
their employees or family members
This is a commercial building but Commercial Design
Guidelines still apply and many General Plan policies do
also
Commercial Design Guidelines
1.3 Protect property owner investments by discouraging inappropriate
adjacent development
1.4 Sensitive Interface of commercial development with adjacent
residential neighborhoods;
maintain sense of place with views of surrounding hills preserved;
scale and character appropriate to the setting
1.5.1 Break fa~ade segments into modules sympathetic to the smaller
scale of nearby residences
Inconsistencies with General Plan
INT-1 Land Use decisions encompass not only zoning , but circulation, design#
open space, and other factors.
LU p. 15 projects developed under the mixed use designation SHALL maintain
the small town residential scale and natural environment of adjacent residential
neighborhoods ...
LU 1.8 Commercial development of any type SHALL be designed in keeping with
small town character of Los Gatos
LUG Goal: preserve and enhance the existing character and sense of place in
residential neighborhoods
LU 6.1 Protect existing residential areas from impacts of non-residential
development
LU 6.2 allow non-residential activity in residential areas only when the character
and quality of the neighborhood can be maintained
LU 6.5 Type, density, and intensity of new land use Shall be consistent with that
of immediate neighborhood
LU 6.8 New construction Shall be compatible and blend with the existing
neighborhood
We ask you to direct the developer to reduce the building size to Jess than
62,000 sq. ft. (we hope for 56,000), build a one-level garage, and use a setback
of 80 feet on the north property line to protect our existing view.
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To: Jennifer Armer
Kalane McDonald <kalaneella@gmail.com>
Friday, December 15, 2017 11:36 AM
Jennifer Armer
405 Alberto Way project
Please forward this message to all members of the Planning Commission.
I attended the Planning Commission meeting on Dec. 13, 2017, as I have all previous meetings regarding this project.
After sitting through an extremely long meeting, the following is a summary of the take-away points that I gleaned from
listening to speakers in favor and against:
* .300 additional cars on a single access street
* 100 cars entering and exiting Alberto Way to/from Alberto Oaks, 475 and 485 Alberto Way
* increased traffic congestion on Hwy. 9 between Hwy. 17 and Los Gatos Blvd.
* . the only other two story office building of similar size at 750 University is located on a
busy thoroughfare surrounded by commercial buildings
* disputed testimony by experts on the effects of constructing a two level underground
garage, with potential negative impacts on residents
*.a large, massive building that does not fit in with residential neighborhood and
architecture
* destruction of the view of the mountains for residents
*.a shuttle service that will not be useful to residents of Alberto Way and which is only a
carrot to entice the Planning Commission to accept the plan
• . the claim by the applicant that only a 74,260 sq. ft. building meets Class A office space
*.the claim by the applicant that only a 74,260 sq . ft. building is economically feasible
* . this project will bring in money to the coffers of Los Gatos
* the Chamber of Commerce is in favor
The conclusion: this project does not fit in with the neighborhood and is too large for the size of the lot, and will bring
with it many headaches regarding increased traffic. An examination of the Town Plan for Los Gatos proves that this
project should be rejected.
Sincerely,
Kalane McDonald
443 Alberto Way
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To :
Subject:
Hi Jennifer,
Gordon, Barry < Bgordon@Structint.com>
Saturday, December 23, 2017 6:24 PM
Jennifer Armer
Our Support for the Alberto Way Project
I am the President of the Los Gatos Bicycle Racing Club that was established here in 1960. We were founded
by the late Daves Avenue teacher, Bob Tezlaff, a 1960 US Olympian and member of the Bicycle Hall of
Fame. Our club will be celebrating the 45th Cat's Hill Classic bike race on April 28, 2018 in the Almond District
of Los Gatos.
We have devoted considerable time to the Town of Los Gatos as an Ambassador of the Los Gatos Chamber of
Commerce while also supporting several local charitable organizations such as the Los Gatos Education
Foundation (LGEF), the Community Against Substance Abuse (CASA) and the Los Gatos High School Band.
Our club, which is also a 501 C3 charity, fully support the proposed construction proje~t at the intersection of
Albert Way and Highway 9 . We believe that the proposed project will serve the best interests of the community
and that Lamb Partners have sincerely addressed all the concerns of the local community.
Therefore, we urge the Los Gatos Planning Commission to approve this wonderful addition to our community.
Thank you for your consideration and Happy Holidays.
Sincerely,
Barry Gordon, President
Los Gatos Bicycle Racing Club, Inc.
A four-time USA Cycling Club of the Year
A 501 C3 Charity
www.lgbrc.org
408-821-6014
bgordon@structint.com
-
Oivi ;on C.---.-
)· U$A.CVCLING
cwa OF THE! Yl!Aft
Electronic Privacy Notice: The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended
solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and
attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any
printout. Thank you for your cooperation.
To : Planning Commission
From: Loretta Fowler
Date: December 23, 2017
Sitting in the hearing on December 13, I heard arguments that the proposed
project will promote increased revenue for town businesses. I do not think that
idea should be accepted uncritically. So please consider the following.
WILL THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 405 ALBERTO WAY BRING NEW BUSINESS TO
DOWNTOWN LOS GATOS?
The Chamber of Commerce surveyed 50 people (SO respondents out of 399
contacted). According to this survey most (67%) thought that the new office
would bring new revenue to downtown businesses. Fifty-eight percent thought a
shuttle service to downtown would b_enefit their business.
HOW MUCH CONFIDENCE CAN WE HAVE IN THIS SURVEY?
This is an OPINION survey. There has been no feasibility study or any
objective study of the effect of the proposed office building. There has been no
study of the buying habits or lunchtime activity of the 100 plus tenants at 475 and
485 Alberto Way (a 56,000 sq. ft. office complex). Do we know if Netflix has
brought new business to Los Gatos?
Mr. Lamb collaborated on the survey with Catherine Somers of the
Chamber of Commerce (see Town Council hearing, 9/19/17, 3:43:04). There are
three questions on the survey, all leading, and the description of the proposed
project was all positive and, in actuality, misleading (e.g., the proposed office
complies with the General Plan).
Despite the bias inherent in the questionnaire, in the comments section
where respondents could express concerns, 33 responded. Twenty-one
expressed reservations: 16 about the increase in traffic and 4 about the huge size
of the building.
COULD NEW CUSTOMERS FROM AMONG THE TENANTS AT 405 ALBERTO WAY (IF
THERE ARE ANY) BRING NEW REVENUE?
Two members of the Commons committee spoke to Chamber of Commerce
employees and learned that the main causes of the decline in business are
increased traffic, online shopping, and competition from Campbell restaurants
and bars. The proposed building would not alleviate any of these problems.
WILL THE PROPOSED SHUTTLE BRING CUSTOMERS from the 405 project to
downtown?
Employees would sit on a bus for up to 20 minutes or more to get
downtown, wait for service in a restaurant or shop, then get back on the bus for
another 20 minutes or more. And there would be walking time to get from one of
the stops to the target business. Is it likely employers would welcome this much
time away from the office?
The developer says the shuttle will run five days a week from 10:30 AM to
3:30 PM and will be available to neighbors on Alberto Way. More than half the
Alberto Way residents leave for work before 10:30. At this time of day, retirees
who want to go to Safeway or Walgreens go up to the intersection and turn right
and drive or walk to University, turn north and go one block, and turn left into the
Safeway parking. This takes from 5 to 10 minutes. Why sit on ·a bus for three
times that long riding through town? By the way, the DEVELOPER NEVER ASKED
THE RESIDENTS OF ALBERTO WAY IF THEY WOULD LIKE A SH UTILE at 405.
Moreover, people already downtown, who might get on the bus, have already
driven there and parked.
I do not believe the shuttle was mentioned before the Planning
Commission rejected the proposed project on May 10. The developer offered the
shuttle (and mailed a misleading brochure about the popularity of the project all
over town) just at the time his appeal went before the Town Council.
We asked one of the TOWN COUNCIL members if the proposed shuttle
could be used to convince the Council to approve the project. The answer was:
''THIS IS A LAND USE ISSUE" and the SHUTTLE "IS NOT RELEVANT.''
I hope that the proposed Redesign 3 will be considered on its own merits.
The idea that the developer is going to help downtown businesses is wishful
thinking.
Sincerely yours,
Loretta Fowler
451 Alberto Way #247
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc :
Subject:
>
>Dec. 26, 2017
> Ms . Jennifer Armer
>Community Dev. Dept.
M. Claire Ferguson <m.claireferguson@yahoo.com >
Tuesday, December 26, 2017 11:52 AM
Jennifer Armer
m.cla ireferguson@yahoo.com
405 Alberto Way project
> 110 E. MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CA.
>This is to provide important input into the second Jan. 10 Planning Commission consideration of the 405 Alberto Way
project, since Town Council questions on this project in Oct. have been sent back to the Commission.
>Originally the Planning Commission had requested the development proposal square footage be reduced by one-third,
and the merit of that judgement has increased with additional project information. Most importantly, the proposed
underground garage next to a creek with a high water table should be no more than one level, since a two-level garage
was deem~d a risk to structural foundations of nearby residences by a civil engineering expert. Even the method of
addressing risk from constructing a one-level garage below the water table has not been presented by the developer, so
there is still an open question of managing this technical uncertainty. A one-level garage is consistent with square
footage reduction originally requested by the Commission and supported by residents on Alberto Way who are
significantly impacted by the increase in traffic.
>We realize there are local business interests, and a one-level garage design allows more than double the office space
over the existing building it will replace, and would be double the size of the commercial hotel building across the street.
>As residents, we strongly believe this project size should be the maximum allowed by the City from a safety and health
perspective which is key to the quality of life in the t:ommunity.
>SINCERELY,
>Claire Ferguson/Manya Lane
Jean Farren Jones
443 Alberto Way, Unit B 218
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner
Los Gatos Planning Commissioners
Los Gatos Town Hall
11 o E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
December 27, 2017
At your hearing on December 13, 2017 there was a discussion about the bus the Lamb
Company, the developer of the project at 401-409 Alberta Way stated they would provide to the
town. I don't see any benefit to the town from the bus. With the current traffic problems in the
town the employees in the proposed building will not have time to take the bus to local shops
and restaurants, make a purchase, shop, eat or whatever they plan to do then take a bus back
to their work in an hours time. The same is true for the town residents and high school
students. The time it will take to make the proposed loop with only one bus will make the trip
difficult or impossible.
I spoke to the office manager of the Chamber of Commerce, she indicated that the employees
of the new office building will not improve the downturn in business for the local merchants.
On-line shopping, increased Los Gatos traffic and the fact many Los Gatos residents are
going to Campbell for shopping and dining are the main causes of decreased business.
Sincerely,
·~~r
an Farren Jones
resident
Los Gatos Commons HOA
Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner
Jean Farren Jones
443 Alberto Way, Unit 8218
Los Gatos, CA 95032
To Los Gatos Planning Commissioners
Los Gatos Town Hall
11 O E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
December 27, 2017
At the Planning Commission hearing on December 13, 2017 I was disappointed that 401-409
Alberto Way was second on the agenda . However, some of the information from the Topping
Way hearing was helpful to learn,
1 . The opinions of the neighboring residents was taken into consideration by the
commissioners.
2 . The largest bu ilding in a neighborhood can be considered MASSIVE.
I hope these points will also pertain to the proposed office space at 401-409 Alberto Way.
In my opinion and that of many of my neighbors, the proposed building at 401-409 Alberto Way
is MASSIVE and does not fit on on that lot. A building of not more than 56,000 sq. ft. would be
much more appropriate
Thank you for your time end consideration.
Sincerely
Jean Farren Jones
President ,
Los Gatos Commons HOA
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To :
Subject:
To whom it may concern :
Jean-Mar c F. Blanchard <jeanmarcf.blanchard@gmail.com>
Wednesday, December 27, 2017 9:11 AM
Jennifer A r mer
Comments on Revised Alberto Way project
i. I am writing to comment on the revised plans for the Alberto Way deveiopment.
II. I think the developers for Alberto Way have made progress, but I still feel the project is too large and will have a
negative effect on the "Look & Feel" of the area and a very negative effect on the already overloaded stretch of road
between Los Gatos Blvd. and Santa Cruz Ave .
Ill. I am glad the developers are considering a shuttle but rather than put MORE veh icles on the road why don't they
make improvements that would facilitate biking and walking to downtown and access i ng public transportation. The
stretch of road from Alberto Way to Santa Cruz Ave ., especially around the access/exit areas from 17, is very
bicyclist/pedestrian unfriendly and will get worse with more vehicles.
IV. Many building in Singapore are designed with plants embedded in the structures (not just around them). This has 3
benefits: (1) helps clean the air; (2) breaks up large blocks of concrete/brick; and (3) adds to the scenery rather than
takes away from it. The Alberto Way buildings should do something similar.
V. Thank you for your time and consideration .
Jean-Marc F. Blanchard
[information below should _not_ be put in public record]
113 Creekside Village Drive, LG 95032
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Debbie <dcsacksl@comcast.net>
Monday, January 01, 2018 10:09 AM
Jennifer Armer
Alberto Way Project
I would like to add my voice to those who urge the town to scale down the project at Alberto Way. There is already so much
traffic congestion around that highway interchange. Please consider reducing the size of the buidling (and corresponding
number of ca r s) for this project.
Thank you .
Sincerely,
Debbie Sacks
18400 Overlook Road Unit 31
Los Gatos, CA 95030
To: Town of Los Gatos Jennifer T. Armer, ACIP
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
110 E Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030
Emaill: Armer@LosGatosCA.gov
From: Harold Vitale, 415 Alberto Way Los Gatos CA 95032
Email: hsvitale@earthlinknet
Date: January 2, 2018
Dear Jennifer,
Introduction:
A traffic analysis to determine the flow of cars from the proposed 405 project and
the parking facility at 485 is included. This study is for traffic flowing out of these
two facilities. The situation analyzed could likely occur in the late afternoon hours
as office workers leave their facilities. It is intended to illustrate the wait time for
cars leaving the facilities to entering Saratoga LG Road.
Results:
Results are given in Figures 3 to 6. Attached and based on the traffic map shown in
Figure 1. The detailed Analysis is given in Appendix 1,
Conclusions:
Wait times up to 400secs for 1 OS cars would be very frustrating which shed
quantitative support for the concern of congested traffic.
Ffpre2.S
A·Merge-E
C·B
A-E
~Merge-E
I Note 1
Cme11e-E
LGCBack
Walt Time
Watt ·nme
Ffpre :t
Period#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Figures
Period#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
I Walt
Note 1
Is
Alley
for
for
A-Merpto E
CumPTime
34
68
102
136
170
204
238
X72
306
340
374
408
442
476
510
544
578
612
646
680
AtoB
Cum PTlme
34
68
102
136
170
204
238
272
306
340
374
408
442
476
510
544
578
612
646
680
Time Examples I
10Sth Car WaltTimels Sum of CumPTime & 1st AtoE time
68th Car WaitTimels sum of CumPTlme & bt CtoB time
68th Car Wait Time ls Sum of CumPTlme & 1st AtoE time
105th car WaitTimels Sum of CumPTime & 1st AtoE time
A-merge-E less 1st C-B Time I
Wait Times for single car[ Note -watt Times
LG north At A -A-Me!Je-E See Fig3 409.6
LG south At I. -B·Merge-E See Fig6 371.1
Green li&ht lstc:.rtime Figure4 CtoB
30.7
XCarsXSecs Wait time Period# CumPTime
9.605 69.6 1 34
19.209 103.6 2 68
28.814 137.6 3 102
38.418 171.6 4 136
48.023 205.6 5 170
57.627 239.6 6 204
67.232 273.6 7 238
76.836 307.6 8 272
86.441 341.6 9 306
96.045 375.6 10 340
,105-.&50 409.6 11 3.74
115.254 443.6 12 408
124.859 477.6 13 442
134.463 511.6 14 476
144.068 545.6 15 510
153.672 579.6 16 544
163.277 613.6 17 578
172.881 647.6 18 612
182.486 681.6 19 646
192.090 715.6 20 680
Green Ughtl 1st car time FllU1'116 A-merptoE Green lllht
I 30.7sec
XCns X Secs Walt time Period# cum Plime XCarsXSecs
6.204 64.7 1 34 9 .605
12.408 98.7 2 68 19.209
18 .612 1327 3 102 28.814
24.816 166.7 4 136 38.418
31.02 200.7 5 170 48.023
37.224 234.7 6 204 57.627
43.428 268.7 7 238 67.232
49.632 302.7 8 272 76.836
55.836 336.7 9 306 86.441
62 .04 370.7 10 340 96 .045
68.244 .404.7 11 374 ·· 105.650
74.448 438.7 12 408 115 .254
80.652 472.7 13 442 124.859
86.856 506.7 14 476 134.463
93.06 540.7 15 510 144.068
99.264 574.7 16 544 153 .672
105.468 608.7 17 578 163.277
111.672 642.7 18 612 172.881
117.876 676.7 19 646 182.486
124.08 710.7 20 680 192.090
Wait Time Figure
409.6 Fig3
417.4 Fig4
404.7 FigS
371.l Fig6
GreenliJht 1st air t ime
38.SRC
XCarsXSecs Waitllme
6 .204 72.5
12.408 106.5
18.612 140.5
24.816 174.5
31.02 208.5
37.224 242.5
43.428 276.5
49.632 310.5
55.836 344.5
62.04 378.5
68.244 412.5
74.448 446.5
80.652 480.5
86.856 514.S
93 .06 548.S
99.264 582.5
105.468 616.5
111.672 650.5
117.876 684.5
124.08 718.5
MerptoE WaitAMrgtoE
30.7 less38.S
Wait time CMereeToE
69.6 3L1
103.6 65.1
137.6 99.1
171.6 133.1
205 .6 167.1
239.6 201.1
273 .6 235.1
307.6 269.1
341.6 303.1
375.6 337.l
409.6 371.l
443 .6 405.1
477.6 439.1
511.6 473.1
545.6 507.1
579.6 54Ll
613.6 575.1
647.6 609.1
681.6 643.1
715.6 6n.1
s
a
r
I
l
G
R
d
s
a
r
I
L
G
R
d
0
0A
0
0
0
Fo
000000000 405 Park Gar
000000000
000000000 c
O V
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 v
0
0 v
o <o B o L
E 0000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000
< < <
Alberto Way
0
0
0
o v
0
0
0
0
0
Point B Stop/Merge/Go
Figure 1 Traffic Paths
000000000
000000000
FW17 000000000 c
0 0 ov
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 o" 0 0
o oF <O 0 v
oooooocooooooooo B o L
E 0000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000
<< <
Alberto Way
0
0
0
0
0
0000 000000000
0 0 485 Park Lot
,oooo 00000 0
0000 000000000
000 A
0
0 Distance ft
A-B 1082
C-B 250
B-E 186
A-L 500
0000 000000000
0 0 0
0000 00000 0
0000 000000000
0 "
0
0
Distance ft
A-B 1082
C-B 250
B-D 93
D-E 93
A-L 500 ov
0
0
0
0
0 Figure 2 Considered Not Evaluated
Appendix 1: Analysis
Traffic 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
Traffic Regulations
SMPH (7.33 ft/Sec) within facility property.
25MPH (36.67 ft/sec) on Alberto Way
35MPH (51.33ft/sec) on Saratoga L/G Rd
Traffic Signal at Alberto & Saratoga/LG Rd:
17Sec Red. 17Sec Green, 3Sec Yellow, 8 Sec Walk
Travel Distances
1082 Ft: (485 Parking) to (405 driveway intersection) at Alberto
250 Ft: (405 Garage) to (405 driveway intersection) at Alberto
185 Ft: ( 405 driveway intersect at Alberto) to Intersection of (Sar /LG Rd)& Alberto
177 Ft: (Right Turn Lane Length)
Definitions:
The travel time for vehicles from the 485 parking lot and from the 405 Garages to
Saratoga Road are dependent on the following:
Vehicle Starts and or Stops ,Traffic Signalers, Stop Signs, Alternate Vehicles Signs.
Speed limits
Tstart: Start times, from stopped to speed limit velocity
Tstop: Stop times, from speed limit velocity to stopped
a: Delay time between moving vehicles or gap time
Tr: Time to travel distance L at speed limit velocity V.
A: Starting point at 485 Alberto
B: Location of 405 Alberto intersection with Alberto
C: Location where proposed right hand turn lane begins
D: Location of Stop (cross-walk-markin) at Alberto & Saratoga Rd
Vup: Velocity after start time
Vdn; Ve locity at beginning of stop time
Tfill : Time to move car n+ 1 =a.
NuVeh: Numbe r of c ars bumper to bumper in distance D
DltaTmst: time to move one car length at velocity V
Assumptions:
The Traffic signal at the intersection of Alberto Way and Saratoga Los Gatos Rd is:
17Secs Greeen, !7 Secs Red for traffic leaving Alberto way. Source of this
information is the current Traffic Impact Executive Summary Study for this project.
CarLesngth; Average car length=15feet
Vehicle Start time is a linear function of time i.e.
V(t)= V*(t/Tstart) for t=>O and t=<Tstart & is V fort=> Tstart
Vehicle Stop time is a linear function of time i.e .
V(t)= V-V*ft/Tstop) for t=O and t=<Tstop &. is 0 for t= .. Tstop
A-B: 1082 Ft: (485 Parking) to (405 driveway intersection) atAlberto
C-B : 250 Ft: ( 405 Garage) to ( 405 driveway intersection) at Alberto
B-D 185 Ft: ( 405 driveway intersect at Alberto) to Intersect of (Sar /LG Rd)&
Alberto ·
0-E 177 Ft: (RightTurn Lane Length)
N: number of cars stopped bumper to bumper in distance 1052 i.e.
N=1052/15=70.13car
Analysis:
Starting distance is D(t)start=lntegral (V /(Tstart))*t)=(V /Tstart)*(t"2)/2
Stopping distance is D(t)stop=lntegral (V-(V /Tstop)*t)=
=V*t-(V /Tstop)*(t"2)/2)
Tfill=(Average Carlength)/V
DltaTrnst Time=(CarLength/V)sec
Distance ft
A-B 1082
C-B 250
B-E 186
Vup f/s
36.7
7.3
36.7
Transit sec Delay sec Start sec Stop sec
Distance ft
A-B 1082
C-B 250
B-E 186
28.3 1.7
34.3 1.7
5.07 1.7
NuVeh cars 1 car length sec
70.1 0 .41
16.7 1 .86
12.3 0.41
Delay Time for A to B Carl at 25MPH(37.6ft/s:
Time for CarlAtoB=Tstart+ Transit+ Tstop+ Tfill=
=1+28.3+ 1+0.4=30.7Secs
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
Tfill sec
0.40
2.05
0.40
Cars from B then merge with Cars from C at Point B. See Derivation of
Tdelay /Merge at Point B
Delay Time for c to B Carl at 5 MPH(7.3ft/sec):
Time for CarlCtoB =Tstart+ Transit+ Tstop+ Tfill
= 1+34.3+1+2.05=38.35
T
Cars from C then merge with Cars from A at Point B. See Derivation of
Tdelay /Merge at Point B
Delay Time for B to E Cart at 25 MPH(37.6ft/sec):
Time for Carl BtoE =Tstart+ Transit+ Tstop+ Tfill =
=1+5.0+1+0.40=9.73sec
Merged cars then traveled to E. See Derivation of Tdelay
Derivation of Tdelay /Merg:
There is a stop sign at this intersection for cars C to B. Assume that cars from A also
stop at the intersection to allow the stopped car from C to turn right The cars
alternately stop and start in order to merge, a Courtesy Traffic Regulator.
The delay at B as cars from A merge with cars from C is as follows:
Right Turn Traffic delay at SMPH;
This time delay is calculated from the total travel distance ofCarC from start up to
being in position to accelerate to 25MPH.
Note: Start up length=(8.3*Tstart/2)= 8.3/2=4.15ft, Total path length,..,, lOft,
10-4.15=5.BSft. time to go 5.85f at 8.3f/sec=0.7sec. The delay therefore is 1Sec +
.70Sec+l.7Sec
Right turn travel time=1. 7sec. (at SMPH)
Acceleration from SMPH to 25MPH: CarC
Following the right turn delay of 1.7Sec CarC accelerates from SMPH to 25 .MPH
(Obeying speed limits). By inspection this transition time is 0.8Sec.
Total delay for Car C from start at the intersection to reaching 25MPH is therefore
1. 7Sec+0.8Sec.
Time for Turn + Tansition= 2.SSec. Care
CarA continues at 25MPH
Intersection Crossing ,Traffic Delay at 2SMPH: CarA
Note Start up length=Tstart=36.7*Tstart/2=18.35fbut Path length =20ft.
Total distance across intersection is zoa 20ft-18.35=1.65~ 1.65ft/37.6=0.04sec,
Intersection Crossing Time =1.04sec
Impact of Stopping/Starting/Interleaving of cars at the Junction at Point 8
Let time TO be when Care and Car A are each stopped at intersection B.
The sequence of merged cars starting at TO is:
CarCl starts and reaches Point Bin 1.70secs then accelerates from SMPH to 25Mph
in O.Ssec. CarC2 starts again in 1.7Secs+l.04Secs
CarAl waits 1.70secs, starts and reaches Point B in 1.04secs & continues at 25MPH
These two cars and following cars are merged traveling at 25MPH with 1.04sec and
1.7sec delay between each other. Carel lags Car Al. CarAl continues at 25mPH.
CarC2 is further delayed by 0.8Sec, the speed transition time.
•
Car Flow Rates
One Ccar leaves point B every 2. 7 4Secs/Ccar
One Acar leaves Point B every 2.74Secs/Acar ·
Merged, there will be 2 cars leaving the merged point every 2.74secs/2 cars. We can
rewrite this as: (1.7 sec/2)+(1.04Sec/2)=(0.85sec/Ccar+0.52Sec/Acar).
Interpret this as: Car A leaads CarC by 0.52sec & CarC is delayed from CarA by
0 .. 8Ssec .. As described, each Ccar is delayed further t.o 0.8sec+ 0.85sec sec=1.65Sec
but both cars are then traveling at 25MPH .
Following the merge time, Ccar experience an additive delay of 0.8ecs & Care trails
CarA byl.65sec
Time for the nth car from C to B
Wait time for fi rst car from C to B=TCB1=38.35.
Wait time fo r second car C to B=(TCB1)+2.74
Wait time for third car C to B = (TCBl )+ 2. 7 4+ 2. 7 4
I Time for mth car A to B = TAB1+(m-1)*2.74
Delay times for Merged Ccars & Acars
As given above merged delay times between cars is (0.52sec/Acar1)+1.65/Bcar1.
Delaytime for tst 2 cars=TBD+2.17
Delay time for znd 2 cars=TBD+Z.17+2.17
Delay time for 3rd 2 cars=TBD+2.17+2.17+2.17
I Delay time for 2pth car=TBD+2.17*p
The difference in the rise time of 0 to 25MPH and the rise time from SMPH to
25MP H at identical slew rate s. This delay will be added to the delay of e ach Care
delay time. The timing delay times s e que nce is as follows:
CarA leads Care by 0.52 s ec.
Total Time for mth car A to B =TAB1 +(m-1)*2.74.
Time for the cars from C to D After Merge start of Speed Transition
Wait time for first car from C to B=TBDl+ spee d increase im=(32.3+0.8)sec=33.1sec
Wait time fo r second car A to C=TBD1 +0.8secs =TCBl +3.54
Wait time fo r thir d car C to B = TCBl +3.54+3.54sec
Traffic Signaler Regulation: A traffic light cyle is 34Sec. The Red Signal Light
stops the flow of cars fort 7 Secs. When the signal turns Green the next cars advance
until the Red light tur ns on again. In one period of 34 Secs.
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Jennifer-
Judith Stark <judystark@me.com >
Tuesday, January 02, 2018 8:14 PM
Jennifer Armer
Stark Dennis
Alberto Way Project
I'm writing in reference to the proposed office building at the corner of Alberto Way and Highway
9 . My husband and I own a condo in Los Gatos Commons and feel strongly that the proposed
complex is very ill-suited for the neighborhood. Besides the traffic congestion and other traffic-
related problems, we have other concerns: 1-The disruption, noise, and dirt caused by the
construction project itself, 2 -The underground parking (2 stories), and 3 -Alberto Way has very
dense residential housing so a large number of people will be impacted by the problems inherent in
this project, not the least of which is the obstruction of views,
If the goal is to make the buildings earthquake-proof, check out the office buildings at the very end of
Alberto Way . I worked in those buildings in the mid-90's when they were deemed not earthquake-
proof; they were retrofitted with metal braces on the outside that not only satisfied the requirements
related to quakes but also blend in quite harmoniously with the building. No need to tear everything
down -just upgrade the existing buildings!
Judy Stark
January 3, 2018
To: Planning Commission
From: Los Gatos Commons Committee on Alberto Way Development and the
Board of Directors
We write to refute the idea that the proposed building at 405 Alberto Way
has to be at least 74,260 sq. ft. to attract tenants.
DESCREPANCY BETWEEN ORIGINAL AND RE-CENT .PROPOSALS
In the DEIR (2. 7) we read that the developer plans two buildings to house "a
variety of professional office uses similar to the use of the existing buildings on
the site" [three buildings, about 10,000 sq. ft. each]. At this time the developer
proposed two buildings, one 45,000 sq. ft. and the other, 47,800 sq. ft. (both with
floor plates of about 23,000 sq. ft.). The developer's plan was for Class A office
space: defined as "larger floor plates," operational functionality, energy
efficiency, and employee amenities (DEIR 2.2).
WHAT IS A "CLASS A" OFFICE BUILDING AND MUST IT BE AT LEAST 74,000 Sq. Ft.?
The definition provided by Catherine Somers of the Chamber of Commerce at the
10/17/17 Town Council hearing on the 15,860-94 Winchester project (2:04:44)
was "the newest and highest quality buildings in the market. They are generally
the best looking buildings with the best construction and possess the highest
quality building infrastructure. Class A buildings are also well located and have
good access and are professionally managed. As a result of this, they attract the
highest quality tenants and also command the highest rents." She made no
mention of floor plates.
Research through Google, affirms Ms. Somers's description: Class A buildings are
the most prestigious with rents above average and high quality finishes, state of
the art systems, exceptional accessibility, and especially outstanding amenities for
tenants [such as copy services, food, daycare, fitness center, dry cleaners]
Why could not the developer build a 56,000 or 62,000 sq. ft. building so state-of-
the-art, so beautiful, with so many high-end amenities for tenants that he could
charge a very high rent? With only a oi'l"e-level garage he would save millions ' in·
construction costs . Why couldn't this be economically feasible? We "neighbors"
do not want any "amenity space" or dog park. All the developments on Alberto
way .nave adequate public space (as .you-ean s-ee from the Google sateUit.e.photo}.
The planned amenity space for "neighbors" could be used for surface parking.
We say again, a building 74,260 sq. ft. is too big for Alberto Way. As we read the
Gene:raf Ptan arn:f Commercial Design GtrideHnes; the proposed project is ··
inconsistent with many town goals and policies regarding land use and protection
of views of the Santa Cruz Mountains. And this size building would bring in way
too .many .cars forlittleAJberto Way. ... Not.only would the :proposedpr.oject.bring
in 300 vehicles to our narrow, single access street but the renovated 475-485
offices bring an additional 100 plus cars (not factored in by the Hexagon study,
which was completed before the renovation). All these cars would create .
excessive delays and safety issues for residents.
WE URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE GENERAL PLAN AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN
GUIDELINES, AS YOU PREVIOUSLY DID, AND DIRECT THE DEVELOPER TO REDUCE
THE SIZE of the building so that a one-level garage will hold the associated cars
and so that our existing north view corridor to the Santa Cruz Mountains is
preserved. Though with heavy hearts, we support your previous consensus that a
building 55,000 to 62,000 sq . ft. is appropriate.
BOARD OF DIRECTQRS, LOS_.§.ATOS,..COMM,P~S
!k~~~--~~~~ ~
COMMITTEE ON ALBERTO WAY DEVELOPMENT, LOS GATOS COMMONS
r'Yk~ I(__~ c~)
~ ~/£,5~ {~d'mj. (. . . -)-~ . . Q ~,F7~~j···"~
~ ---~~~(~-1
Pre>·
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subjed:
Barbara Grimm <imagoint@gma il.com>
Wednesday, January 03, 2018 8:49 AM
Jennifer Armer
Alberto Way
I am a Los Gatos resident of more than 48 years and wish to register my NO vote for the huge construction project that
is proposed for Alberto Wy. The noise and traffic wiil be a nightmare for the residents weli as the congestion aiong the
short distance to enter and exit Hwy 17.
Please consider the residents of this already congested area.
Sincerely
Barbara Grimm
Sent from my iPad
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To the Planning Commission;
Joan K Larson <joanklarson@aol.com >
Thursday, January 04, 2018 12:13 PM
Jennif er Armer
401 -409 Alberto Way
There is no re si dent on Alberto Way that want this large building that will bring such additional traffic. I doubt anyone in
the office complex at the end of the road at 475 wants it to be approved. Only people who think this is a good idea for
Los Gatos are those who do NOT live here on Alberto Way.
Only one that voiced approval (but does not live here) was a Grill 57 person who th inks there would be more customers.
Told by Lamb that the restaurant could use 401-409 surface parking. Hard to do that with the metal fence blocking
entrance . As we were told of use of the picn i c tables and dog walk. Wouldn't that be the tenant, not the developer, to
permit that condition ..
The Geissler Hydrology Report needs to be reviewed . The residents are affected .
There is no other dwelling in Los Gatos with a two floor underground garage .
T here is no dwelling on Alberto Way with an underground garage.
There is no dwelling on Alberto Way the size of the proposed building.
There is no ingress/egress than ONE on Alberto Way. A dead end road.
There will much less ground cover to absorb rain water with the cement and asphalt for the surface parking and
driveways. The excess water will run to its lowest spot on Alberto Way and will likely cause floodi ng in my patio and
condo. And elsewhere. Which is a definite concern.
Thank you for attention to this matter.
Joan K. Larson. LG Commons
441 Alberto Way, Unit 114
408-348-6698
Sent from my iPhone
My name is Thomas Dunn and I live at 420 Albertro way.
I understand the need for a new development across the street from my complex
but not at the cost and expense and ware and tear on all the residents on
Albertro Way.
Safety for residents, children and the seniors are a major concern. 2 years of
dump trucks, trucks with building supplies, Large cranes, heavy duty operating
equ ipment, PGE digging up the roads , Cal trans digging up the streets is not only
dangerous to us but makes no sense . (Would you want to live across the street
from this for 2 years or more?
I believe by reducing the size of the building can resolve the majority of the issues
we have about the current proposal.
Here are my concerns
There's no evidence that Los Gatos needs a large class a building
There are numerous small businesses and professionals in town that would love
to have a nice multi -use office at that location . Previous tenants to the property
were attorneys, insurance agents, CPA's, print copy center, financial planners and
more and the property was most of the time full.
No evidence that this building will bring more revenues to downtown merchants .
A lot of the residents on Albertro Way spend mornings, lunchtime, weekends and
our money in town because we live here we like it, and understand the
importance of supporting our local merchants .
The new business model of employees do not have the luxury of long lunches or
shopping breaks to go downtown or the need to support our local merchants.
Most companies now have their own cafeteria or have lunch catered in.
NO NEED FOR A DOG PARK. When I spoke to Shane about this he said that 2
women across the street suggested it. Of the 2 women, one has moved out and
the other is looking to sell and relocate. Use that space for more parking for
employees and no need for 2 level underground parking .
A Bike lane between 2 turn lanes at Albertro way and High_way 9 takes parking
spaces off the street and is ridiculous and very unsafe. There is now twice the risk
of someone getting hurt. This is a dead end street and I see maybe 2 or 3 bikes
per day go up our street. No one from the Albertro Oaks offices rides their bikes,
no one from the Commons is riding bikes up the street and a few children ride on
the side walk up the hill on the safe side of the street.
All it takes is one child or senior or a resident bike riding down Albertro Way and
to get hit or killed during construction or by the new large number of cars leavi ng
this building it senseless . It would cause a law suit against the company and the
town for letting this project even be considered ... SAFTEY FIRST FOR THE LOS
GATOS COMMUNITY.
The definition of a class A building is defined by quality and size of 50,000 sqft
not the 72,000 sqft misrepresented by the developer.
Also there was a 35,000 sqft class A building just built on Winchester so a class A
building can also be less than 50,000 Sqft
So a smaller size class A building should be able to work at this site which takes
less time to demolish and rebuild, preservers the view of the mountains, reduces
the traffic and number of cars and keep Albertro Way safe.
The following is from my first letter to the town on August 15, 2016 on how they
have misrepresented themselves and especially this protect and they continue
to do so today.
I do not trust Randy Lamb or Shane Arters. l do not believe any words that come
out of their mouths. All night at the meeting they would change their story to fit
what they think you might like to hear. There is no integrity or professionalism in
their 2 man company that knows nothing about Los Gatos or the Los Gatos
community. They are out of towners.
-He has inaccurately presented to you at the planning meeting the amount of
office square footage they have built, over 1 million, and the number of offices,
12, but I can only find 3 office buildings they have on their website and one of
them is a drawing of the Albertro way project.
They understated numerous information to residents about the time and
damage it will take to excavate the property, the number of dump trucks it will
take and not to mention the damage it will do to our street and possible the
water pipes etc below the street. He told us 4 weeks and at the meeting he now
says 3 months. He told us around 50 dump trucks and now it is more like 350
dump trucks. This is only one example of the non-truths he tells.
Also the one that really gets me is at the planning meeting on august 10th he
stood up and said that he had held 14 community outreach programs in our
neighborhood and that over 100 people attended and no one was opposed to the
project.
WRONG: Everyone at our meeting and all of the other condos meetings also
adamantly opposed to the project when we saw the sight poles being put up .
One major concern is because of the size and mass and the bulk of the buildings
and it was way way to big to fit into our neighborhood. We made several
suggestions to lower the buildings, reduce the size and all he said was that he has
town approval and has complied with all the requirements and he doesn't care
what the residents think, they're going to build this project anyway.
ALSO NO ONE is in favor of this project for all of the reasons you heard at the
meeting and because of all the concerns in the summary we submitted to you
with over 200 signatures on a petition opposing this project (see Attached
concerns} This is not a safe place to build
His comment to us at our last outreach meeting was he wasn't concerned
because the GRANNIES down street and can't make it this far anyway.
I would like to see a smaller size, 35,000 to 50,000 sqft ,one story, no
underground parking garage, with multi use offices for local business owners and
·businesses from the surrounding towns. No bike lane or dog park needed.
t\11o er·1-o ,, ... ,-;J .lr c1· l1" '7. on . ...., Ft ll""'l-·11 er Tes·t-1• I'"'O l'tf\Y" 1-0 .. ..,. ~ . ·~ ~-\ ,... _,e _ .. ;rs . .,, -~-·-· . -. t .. ---Y -
"' ··EI~ e ·Loe G "'.:'l t-o~ ·pJ .artnir1 P ro1nnn 1· c;:;.,....1·on1J c, 4·01· -l _ ,:) o. ...... .... c .. __ .. .0 ...... .. l ....,;-:, . _ .::J _
409 Alberto \'Vay· JanJJ.ar~r 10} 2 018 I-Iearing
Submitted by Bob Burke individually and for those who signed the Petition
AppHcant's dain1 drnt th~:t ~ is rle~nand for C!ass A cnm1nen::fa.! bllihlings
i~ rw: suppoiAt~d by any evidence of-demauri sutmutte!i te th~ r~ccE"W
Applicant has presented no CEO, Chairman or a Board of Dfrectors from any
prospective large tenant that can afford to occupy the entire building or even half of it
who says they want to locate in Los Gatos and have passed a resolution that they want
to.
All we've seen thus far from this and other Applicants for proposed commercial office
developments is a representative of local Chamber of Commerce to represent the
commercial interests of the small merchant businesses who hope to receive added
income from the presence of new Class A commercial occupants. They present no
evidence of actual demand for Class A, but appeal to the Town that their sales are
down. We know they're down thanks to three factors:
On-line Retail led by Amazon and continued by restaurant delivery services, allowing
Campbell & San Jose competition with local establishments
The traffic congestion caused by increased population in Silicon Valley and
The diversion of beach traffic to Los Gatos Town streets by Waze
Furthermore, the Town of LG has done nothing effective to stop the beach traffic from
entering Los Gatos despite being presented with 10 opportunities by Bob Burke at a
Town Council Meeting last summer
Local business interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of local resident
voters who wish to enjoy the Los Gatos as their home. Commercial offices run up the
cost of Los Gatos traffic infrastructure while they make woefully insufficient contributions
due to the outd~ted traffic study and infrastructure payment computation methods in use
by the Town .
The pursuit of local merchants' commercial interest is not evidence that there is any
demand at all for commercial office space in Los Gatos regardless of building class.
The definition of Class A contains "Newest & nicest" in most sources that can be found .
A,?plkant's daLl! thnt n~ ~uHdh}.g ~ess th2n ::be preaen: 7 1!-K SC! ~t
proposed :tlev~lop:.m~nt !s e~iL>ilcmica!Ry feasib!e ~s not Sll~p;pcrte~ by any
evidence suhrrriiLtcf~ to the Record
Applicant has not presented any evidence to the record to support the assertion and
made the same statement when submitting the two larger proposed developments at
93K and 83K sq ft. A review of planning cases reveals that the economic viability claim
cannot be considered without submission by applicant of proof that it is true.
Furthermore, the Town is not responsible for applicant's failure to assemble
economically viable plans .
Applicant must submit auditable business plans and alternative design studies for
buildings of various permitted uses, finishes and sizes to prove the assertion.
Nci ii!be,rto W'-ly pa!"king spaces propo~ed :::o be remo~/ed shou!d he
approved: rein.oving them m!Dil!'lizes cosi to ap}tHcant iit residents
exuen.3e CJ r <l incoT."tV~nienc~ ..
Lost space s are further away from the residences and proposed replacements are more
convenient for Grill 57 patrons and as overflow for the Best Western Inn at Los Gatos
than for residents.
Applicant should be required to straighten out Alberto Way for the many congestion
control and safety reasons we've already submitted and no parking spaces on Alberto
should be approved for removal.
Geotech's d:ii:m that it has ~ug ·tEnrlerg;-oun.d park:ng wiUt!>U.t I2nd
s ubsidence nn sim!fa:r project s
Geotech and Applicant presented no evidence to the record to support the claims,
locations or geological s imilarities or differences.
G?-Gt:ech f~H eu ta adrl.ress t h e impact: ~hat blockage to the mcvei111e:nt of
undergrounrl water the fa.rge underground pa:-king gar2ge ·wtH present
It is likely to negatively impact nearby res idences within the 0-10 feet to water zone
shown beneath applicant's property and portions or all of every HOA on Alberto Way on
the Santa Clara Valley water District's depth to water map that we submitted . The
i mpact could drive wate r to the surface beneath the crawl space foundations of the
Pueblo de Los Gatos and .the crawl space foundations of Bella Vista Village town
houses in the lower level just to the North of the Pueblo de Los Gatos. Several of the
town houses on Cuesta de Los Gatos had to be retrofitted with sumps to extract near
ground level water.
The backup of water that can no longer flow beneath 401-409 if a two story UG garage
is built can cause disastrous results: more sumps, foundation damage, black mold.
We request that the Planning Commission prevent this risk to our residences by
allowing no more than one underground garage lever and only after new borings are
done by applicant to prove that even 1 level will not damage our residences.
The prcposed shnttle p:resent:s iittie ~:.: na legitimate oppoi"t~n!ty fni' i:se
by anycne.
Tenants of 401-409 Alberto
We've observed the tenants of 475-485 Alberto Way for years. There is a small group of
5-6 who walk to the Lodge for lunch.
The vast majority of tenant employees eat in the office .
Many employees of the property management company located in 475-485 Alberto
report in the office early in the day, leave to work outside and then return to the office for
lunch. Afterward , they leave again in the early afternoon to resume off-premises work.
LGHS students
Freshmen are not allowed to leave campus at any time prior to the last bell during the
first semester http://www.lghs.net/students/schoo l policies/code of conduct/level i i -
administrative intervention and all students need parental permission and same day
school notification to leave any time but lunch:
3
http://www.lghs.net/UserFiles/Servers/Server 87373/lmage/Students/BLOCK%20BELL
%20SCHEDULE.pdf
Second semester freshmen and all other students have short enough lunch periods that
the shuttle cannot be used at all. Most who leave for lunch use cars and go in a group
or walk to the handful of restaurants close enough to be back in time.
After school, students on foot or skateboard are going home. They will have little
opportunity to use the shuttle since its route doesn't get them home or even close
enough to wait for. F~rthermore, they're not going to wait for 15-30 minutes to avoid a
walk that takes less time than the wait+ ride, so applicant's assertion of use by students
should be totally disregarded .
After school, the proposed shuttle can facilitate student drug use, presenting s ignificant
danger to LGHS students. This will accelerate with the legalization
There has been for years an undercover drug intel operation in multiple Silicon Valley
high schools in an attempt to prevent dealing to HS and MS students. Arrests are made
at school. The schools in Los Gatos have been covered by the operation with the goal
to keep the students safe by eliminating distribution in and around the schools. Student
"stoners" have for decades used drugs in an area nicknamed "the wall."
Those who do use but are on foot or skateboard are the most vulnerable students,
principally freshmen & sophomores, who are approached by student dealers. They're
eager for acceptance in their new high school world . Dealers will suddenly have access
to the shuttle for use as an after school "sales & party bus" that they can use to circu late
town until they can avoid detection at home. No shuttles need to stop at schools.
Residents of Alberto Way
Residents will seldom use the shuttle since it is far less convenient than autos for short
in-town trips, an insignificant number of which are destined to stops along its route.
The shuttle is a bad idea used to gain sup.port from local merchants who stand to
gain nothing at the end of the day.
Planning Commission
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: 401-409 Alberto Way Project
Dear Commissioners,
I am a resident of Los Gatos Commons and look
forward to taking in the mountain views as I
walk on my street. While I reviewed the video of
the Dec 13 meeting and again other photos given
to the commission, I was struck at how poorly
they represent the actual blockage of our scenic
views on Alberto Way. The photos submitted by
the developer don't accurately show our lost of
ridgelines and mountains.
The seniors on Alberto Way feel that we wlll be
losing a great deal with proposed project. We
feel that we have comp.romlsed much more then
the developer In the negotiations by agreeing to
a building between 55,000-62,000 sq. ft., one
level garage and just as important the north side
of the project must remain open to the
mountains views. The enclosed photo shows the
lost of our south end view. The other photo
shows the slim side of the peak that remains on
the north end.
We have been honest and diligent In our
research as we try to understand this
development process. We have spent long hours
of study and most of our rainy day funds to hire
experts to guide our understanding. We are
looking for a reasonable size building that the
developer can profit from but one that Is low in
density for a one level garage and protective of
the North side mountain views.
Thank you for all your work on this project
Sincerely
Marilyn Basham,
Resident and business owner in Los Gatos since
1982
Jean Jones, President of Los Gatos Commons
HOA
r1-~
n~~~
~,;,,~ .. -C4w/1
......... <.
"" .) .
·:.
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Planning Commiss ion;
J Scott <gatosbella@gmail.com >
Friday, January 05, 2018 11:00 AM
Jennifer Armer
Alberto Way
Thank you for a continued commitment of making sure Alberto Way project is done right!
Please stay the course and don't let our small town character and charm be robbed by self ·righteous
developers .
Keep this project under 60, 000 sq ft and don't allow the underground parking garage.
Regards,
Jann ette Scott
Alberto Way