401-409 Alberto Wy - Staff Report and Exhibits 27-28
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: 2/14/2018 ITEM NO: 4
DATE: FEBRUARY 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/APPLICANT: 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 January 10, 2018, and continued the
applications to February 28, 2018, with specific direction to consider revisions to the project.
The applicant has submitted a letter explaining that additional changes to the project are not
feasible (Exhibit 27). The applicant requested that the meeting be re-noticed for February 14,
2018, so that the Planning Commission can consider the project, as submitted for the January
10, 2018 hearing.
Exhibit 28 includes additional public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday,
January 10, 2018 and 11:00 a.m., Friday, February 9, 2018.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received under separate cover:
1. Draft Environmental Impact Report
2. Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated June 29, 2016
PAGE 2 OF 3 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001 FEBRUARY 5, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\AlbertoWay401-409 2.14.18 remand cont.docx 2/9/2018 1:40 PM
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)
24. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, December 12, 2017 and 11:00 a.m.
Friday, January 5, 2018
Previously received with January 10, 2018 Addendum Report:
25. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 5, 2018 and 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Previously received with January 10, 2018 Desk Item:
26. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, January 9, 2018 and 11:00 a.m.
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
PAGE 3 OF 3 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001 FEBRUARY 5, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\AlbertoWay401-409 2.14.18 remand cont.docx 2/9/2018 1:40 PM
Received with this Staff Report:
27. Applicant’s Response Letter, received January 30, 2018
28. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, January 10, 2018 and 11:00
a.m. Friday, February 9, 2018
Distribution:
Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC, 535 Middlefield Road, Ste. 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Buchalter
January 30, 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
Suite 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: Responses to Commission Comments from January 10 , 2018 Meeting Regarding 401-409
Alberto Way Architecture and Site Application S-15-056; Conditional Use Permit
Application U-15-009 APN 529-23-018
Dear Jennifer:
Thank you for coordinating the continued processing of the above-referenced 401-409
Alberto Way project (the "Alberto Way Project") for the Los Gatos Planning Commission's
consideration at its upcoming February 14, 2018 meeting. Based on the Commission's deliberations
at its January 10, 2018 meeting and Commissioner Janoffs motion, specifically, we understand that
the Planning Commission has requested that LP Acquisitions review and consider the following
possible further revisions to the Alberto Way Project in advance of the February 14, 2018 continued
meeting:
1. Adjust the elevations of the buildings so that the Project accommodates both single and
two-story elements to maximize the views from the street of the mountains , particularly
the views that would be visible along the western side of the property adjacent to
Highway 17.
2 . Elevation adjustments may be made while maintaining the 74,260-square-foot size of the
Third Redesign proposal, but in that event, the revisions should increase the two-story
element in one direction and allow for a single story in another direction to provide
neighboring residents more mountain views .
3 . Consider reducing the number of surface parking spaces to provide room to expand the
building footprint and extend the building closer to Alberto Way.
BN 3 173 0664v6
buchalter.com
Los Angeles
Napa Val ley
Orange County
Sacramento
San Francisco
Scottsdale
EXHIBIT 27
Buchalter
Ms . Jennifer Armer
January 30, 2018
Page 2
4. Consider further reducing the Project to between 50 ,000 and 60,000 square feet in size.
The requests for consideration included in Commissioner Janoff's motion conflict not only with the
Town Planning Commission and Council's prior direction, but also with the Town 's Commercial
Design Guidelines and General Plan Policies that resulted in the revisions reflected in the Second and
Third Redesigns as further discussed below .
Further Adjustments to Building Elevations Conflict with Prior Town Direction and
Policies
Recommendations I and 2 directly conflict with previous direction and recommendations of
both the Town and the neighbors . Per the neighbors' request as stated in our prior January 3, 2018
submittal, the Third Redesign, which is identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as the
"environmentally superior alternative," repositions a compact and efficient reduced-height, two-story
building mass against the south and west setback lines (Los Gatos Saratoga Rd and Hwy 17) as
shown in Exhibit A (Site Plan Al.01). This change both maximizes open space on the north side of
the site and preserves the views of the mountains to the maximum extent possible at the key view
corridor just north of the building and along the entire Alberto Way stre et frontage, consistent with
General Plan Policies CD-16.1 and CD-16.3.
IfLP Acquisitions were to reduce the size of the second floor of the building in certain areas
to create more building area with only one-story on the north side, the change would result in a
corresponding increase in the two-story building footprint to the south which would then push the
building closer to Alberto Way contrary to the Council and neighbors' request. Furthermore,
Commissioner Janoffs recommendation would increase the lot coverage of the building, which the
General Plan limits to fifty percent. (See Los Gatos General Plan, Land Use Element, p. LU-14).
The increased lot coverage would reduce the amount of surface parking and the open space/amenities
areas since the mass of the building would need to be moved forward towards Alberto Way and the
north property line. Such a change would be inconsistent with the General Plan Policy to protect
existing residential areas from the impacts of non-residential development, including through the use
of buffers. (See Los Gatos General Plan, Land Use Element, Policies LU-6.1 and LU-6.3, p. LU-25.)
The Original Design of91 ,965 square foot included a two-story building element at the
southern end of the property that was located just behind the required setback and positioned along
the Alberto Way street frontage . Additionally, the Original Design did not have the current generous
setback at the northern end of the property line next to the residential neighbors . The Planning
Commission and neighbors opposed the original setback width and the original two-story element,
and to revert to that design would conflict with the Commission's prior direction. By contrast, the
neighbors and certain members of the 2016 Planning Commission (as well as the Town Council)
requested that the project be redesigned to push the building mass "away" from Alberto Way and the
north property line in order to maximize views over the top of the building and through the view
corridor adjacent to the north property line. For these reasons , we are unable to incorporate the
revisions that the Planning Commission has most recently requested and reincorporating these
BN 3 J 73 0664v6
Buchalter
Ms. Jennifer Armer
January 30, 2018
Page 3
changes would be inconsistent with General Plan Policies LU-6 .1 and LU-6 .3. (See also Los Gatos
General Plan, Land Use Element, Policy LU-9.9 (requiring buffers for non-residential proj ects
adjacent to residential areas).)
Reductions in Surface Parking Conflict with Prior Town Direction
Recommendation 3 also conflicts with previous direction provided by the Town and
neighbors. During the Town's Technical Review prior of both the Original Design and Second
Redesign, the Planning Commission and neighbors requested additional surface parking at one of the
2016 Planning Commission meetings in order to replace the existing street parking that will be
displaced by the widened street to accommodate the dedicated south-bound right turn lane as well as
the new Alberto Way bicycle lane and bike box (also requested by the Town). Both the Town and
neighbors requested additional landscaped amenity areas on the front and north sides of the building
that could be utilized by the public. The additional landscaping is consistent with the Town's
Commercial Design Guidelines 1.5 .10 ("All projects shall be well landscaped") and General Plan
Policy CD-3.4 ("Encourage the use of landscaping .... "). Furthermore, at a prior meeting in 2016,
the Planning Commission and the neighbors requested that an efficient below-grade garage be
redesigned to reduce overall excavation and accommodate all on-site staging for construction
vehicles and equipment. Use of underground parking is encouraged under Commercial Design
Guideline 2.2.2, and is particularly appropriate when parking should not be placed at the northern
end of the property to address the neighborhood's preference . The Third Redesign preserves a
modest amount of surface parking as well as useable open space. Any further reductions in surface
parking and amenity areas in order to accommodate a hybrid one/two-story redesign will necessarily
require increasing the size of the below-grade parking garage (to replace the displaced surface
parking) and will reduce the area of the onsite amenity areas.
Further Reductions in the Size of the Project are in Infeasible
As we previously explained in our November 7, 2017 and January 3, 2018 Letters,
Recommendation 4 is infeasible from leasing marketability, usability and economic standpoints for
Class "A" facilities. We previously submitted letters from industry experts including brokers who
specialize in leasing Class "A" office space, and architects who have designed Class "A" office
buildings in Silicon Valley as further support for why reducing the Project size would not meet the
definition of Class "A" office space. By contrast, the neighbors' suggestions that LP Acquisitions
can further reduce the size of the building are based on argument, speculation, and unsubstantiated
opinion, and they lack an adequate foundation because they are not based on facts or assumptions
based on facts that demonstrate smaller buildings would nonetheless meet the demand for Class "A"
office space.
As we stated in our letter of January 3, 2018 and are reiterating here, we previously submitted
extensive information regarding the size of the underground garage and the size of the building
footprint. Further reductions in the size of the building to 50,000 to 60,000 square feet were not
feasible before, and they are not feasible now given existing site constraints and site improvements
BN 3 l 730664v6
Buchalter
Ms . Jennifer Armer
January 30, 2018
Page4
that LP Acquisitions is making to accommodate enhanced roadway access, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities , and open space amenities.
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." 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. Recent case
law also emphasizes the "desirability" of a mitigation measure or alternative. Desirability is based
on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
(Native Plant, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001, citing City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego ( 1982)
133 Cal.App.3d 401 , 417.) That is the case here.
A 74,000 gross square foot building results in 37,000 square foot floor plates, which are very
desirable in a Class "A" market place. Reducing the overall building area down to 60 ,000 or fewer
square feet, will result in floor plates that are 30,000 SF or smaller, and are less marketable in a Class
"A" marketplace. Moreover, the actual usable square footage on each floor is roughly 8 percent less
than the gross square footage, due to the necessary core elements (vertical circulation, restrooms,
utility rooms, etc.). As the floor plates decrease in size, the percentage load factor for the non-usable
areas increases, as the same core elements must still be provided for the smaller floor plates, thus
reducing the marketability of the building when compared to similar buildings with larger floor
plates.
For the reasons set forth above, the recommendations contained in Commissioner Janoffs
recent motion conflict with specific prior Planning Commission and Town Council direction and/or
neighbor requests. In many instances, the requested revisions also conflict with Town policy
(General Plan or Commercial Design Guideline), and were determined to be infeasible due to site
constraints, costs, logistics, legal, leasing marketability, usability and/or technological considerations.
Other Planning Commission Recommendations were Already Included in the Project or
Conflict with Prior Town Direction
Commissioner Hansen suggested that the following recommendations be added to the
Project. All of these recommendations have been incorporated into the Third Redesign or are
included as conditions of approval, or the Town does not have authority to impose the condition in
the first instance.
1. Enhance north setback to improve the view (accomplished by the Third Redesign).
2. Maintain shuttle (CO A/CUP) (conditioned as part of review of the Third Redesign).
BN 3 I 730664v6
Buchalter
Ms . Jennifer Armer
January 30, 2018
Page 5
3 . Ensure that the surface parking and open space on the north end of the property are made
available to neighboring residents. (COA/CUP) (accomplished by and conditioned as part
of review of the Third Redesign).
4. Limit the number of employees (as confirmed by Community Development Director Joel
Paulson, the maximum number of occupants is determined by building and fire codes).
Commissioner Hudes also requested that LP Acquisitions reconsider the dog park and
explore other uses for the open space that might be more attractive to the neighbors. The dog park
was included at the Council's request, and many of the neighbors expressed an interest in having
access to the space .
Alberto Way Would Have Sufficient Right-of-Way to Accommodate Emergency
Vehicles
Commissioner Hudes inquired about the Alberto Way right-of-way and whether it is
adequate to accommodate emergency vehicle traffic. Town Staff stated at the January 10th Planning
Commission Hearing that the proposed widening of Alberto Way "will" accommodate emergency
vehicles based on the new roadway width. The current Alberto Way road width is 36 feet (curb to
curb: 18 feet roadway width for Northbound vehicles and 18 feet roadway width for Southbound
vehicles) and the proposed Alberto Way road width would be 41 feet. The extra 5 feet of roadway
width would come from the existing 2 feet of unused right-of-way along Alberto Way (buffers LP
Acquisitions ' site) within the Alberto Way Project site. LP Acquisitions is proposing to dedicate
approximately 3 feet along the street frontage of its Property to make the new Alberto Way road
width 41 feet in order to increase visibility of pedestrians and vehicles as well as to comply with the
Town's Complete Streets Ordinance by installing a bike lane. Here are the proposed lane widths:
1. Northbound Alberto Way roadway width: 16 feet
2. Southbound Alberto Way roadway width: 10 feet
3. Southbound Alberto Way Bike Lane width with Bike box: 5 feet
4. Southbound Alberto Way Dedicated Right-Turn Lane width: 10 feet
The Project would provide more than enough roadway width for emergency vehicles. The
Town's Public Works and Santa Clara County Fire Department approved the Project design as in
compliance with the Town Code. We are including the enclosed exhibit to clarify the discussion
regarding the Alberto Way Right of Way at the January 10th Planning Commission meeting . Please
see attached Exhibit A (Site Plan Al.01).
BN 31 7 30664v6
Buchalter
Ms. Jennifer Armer
January 30, 2018
Page 6
Conclusion
A Class "A" office project at this site that is smaller than 74,260 square feet would be
infeasible from leasing marketability, usability and economic standpoints. The Project did not result
in significant impacts at 92,800 square feet, 83,000 square feet or at 74,260 square feet. And it still
does not result in significant impacts as several Planning Commissioners acknowledged the EIR
adequately addressed their concerns . My client is unable to further reduce the Project size to address
the Planning Commission's latest request when the Third Redesign is consistent with the General
Plan and Commercial Design Guidelines and there are no significant impacts to be mitigated.
For all of these reasons , we respectfully request that the Planning Commission certify the
Final EIR and approve the Architecture and Site Approval and Conditional Use Permit based on the
Third Redesign.
AG: sl
Exhibit
cc (via email): Joel Paulson
Rob Schultz
Randy Lamb
Shane Arters
Jolie Houston
Dan Mitchell
Dan Kirby
BN 3 I 730664v6
Sincerely,
BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation Byi34
Alicia Guerra
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Jen nifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Jennifer,
RE : 401-405 Alberto Way Project
PLEASE SAVE OUR COMMUNITY!!!
Jorge Pelan <jorgepelon@yahoo.com >
Wednesday, January 10, 2018 2:55 PM
Jennifer Armer
PLEASE SAVE OUR COMMUNITY ON ALBERTO WAY!!!
Reasonable and acceptable objectives:
1) Reduct ion in the size of the project to a maximum of 56,000 sq . ft . (still Class A building)!!!
2) One level garage!
3) 80 ft . setback on north property line to preserve our view!
It seems very typical that both residential and commercial property developers want to make the largest monstrosities
in order to maximize their profits.
The developers usually have very little concern on the repercuss ions their projects may have on the local residents in the
neighborhood, such as (but not limited to):
1) increased traffic congestion,
2) increased levels of pollution and diminished air quality
3) increased inconvenience commuting to and from our homes
Points to remember:
1) Alberto Way is a dead end roadway (absolutely the wrong location for a project of this size and scope)
2) Alberto Way is an extremely high density residential neighborhood with only one way in and one way out.
3) Los Gatos/ Saratoga Road is already an extremely busy and trafficked roadway that currently is frequently very backed
up when people usually commute to and from work.
4) The reason Los Gatos is a charming place to live is because it has less traffic and congestion than other towns and
cities in "Silicon Valley".
5) PLEASE HELP preserve the charm and quality of life that typifies our neighborhood and town .
6) PLEASE, don't allow greedy developers to replicate "Silicon Valley" high congestion problem s and issues in our
neighborhood and town.
THIS IS A DESPERATE PLEA FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE QUALITIES THAT MAKE LOS GATOS SPECIAL!
Thank you!
Jorge (resident in Los Gatos Commons)
Jennifer Armer
From: Craig Steen [mailto:csteen4@ gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:14 PM
To: Council
Subject: Alberto Wy Plan ... a resident's perspective!
Just imagine, if you will, we had submitted to the desires of the Los Gatos-Saratoga Board of Realtors,
Progress Inc., and the Federal gov. Urban Renewal program in the late '60's. In place of one of the historic
jewels of our town, the Almond district, we could have two , monolithic 50 ft. high rise apartment
complexes. And, yes, once that occurred we could have replaced any number of historical icons in Los Gatos
all in the name of moderni zation and enhanced revenues! But thanks to a prescient planning commission
member and a courageous town mayor, new protections were put in place.
By now, you must surmise the satirical nature of my letter concerning the development proposed at Alberto
Wy .. et al.. .. (North 40/20) ... But why is it we once again find ourselves being driven by the influence of
misguided state representatives who not only don't live here but receive much of their campaign contributions
from the very developers who will profit from projects that a majority of our residents deplore . And let's face it,
with respect to the Alberto Wy. project which is located next to the on ramp to Hwy 17 ... and feeds into Hwy.9
that intersects with Los Gatos Blvd .... there will result nightmarish traffic backups since Los Gatos Blvd. cannot
be widened to allow more traffic to flow through this artery .... as well, traffic will back up across the freeway on
Hwy 9 leading to even more congestion at the University and Santa Cruz intersections. Let's face it, after the
Netflix campus and the resulting backups on Winchester etc., Los Gatos has reached a saturation point
Time and time again, we have people who move here from larger metropolitan areas and relatively speaking
, they don't at first realized the gradual erosion of our quality of life as these large scale projects are introduced.
Furthermore, someone with a pecuniary interest will label those concerned with a desire to keep our town
profile within certain parameters as a NAMBY (not in my back yard) or will hide behind an argument pointing
to the possibility of increased revenues for city coffers (never mind the infrastructure costs in a state that already
suffers from water shortages, or impacted school districts that can't even provide ample parking space.) Oh yes,
then there are a few who will echo that we will be left behind, as if we don't accommodate this project tumble
weeds will begin to blow across empty, dusty streets. Believe me, in a bay area population of 7 .2 million, this
isn't a worry, and furthermore, what do you do when on vacation and the campground or hotel is full.. .. that's
right...you don't stay there but go on to another vacant location. And that's exactly what needs to happen. We
don't need to capture every business that wishes to located here. In fact , there will always be a turnover as
established businesses become dated etc ... owners will sell and new ones will gladly come in (Carmel),
modernize the facilities providing jobs for banks, realtors , tradespeople, and clerks etc ... The continual sprawl is
not necessary, and in the case of LA, you can never build your way out of it! And as a matter of practicality,
other states with lower housing costs can use the influx of businesses and increased employment opportunities.
In closing, you need to stand firm against these oversized projects and high density housing that are rammed
down our throats , and consistently proposed and promoted by representatives like State Senator Beall and
Assemblyman Evan Low . Remember, you can be the official who takes credit for helping build the eyesore
that further erodes our quality oflife or preserving the jewel with its iconic heritage known as Los gatos . After
all who knows what the next state/federal development plan du jour will be ....
Thank-you,
Craig Steen, Los Gatos
Jennifer Armer
From: Raymond Toney [mai1to:raymond.toney2@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 1:38 PM
To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca .gov>
Subject: Re : 401 -409 Alberto Way -New Hearing Date 2/14/18
Dear Jennifer. Thank you for your excellent work in the long and tedious and so very important issue noted below. The
developers are professionals and do not go into a project without knowing their bottom line. Nor do they spend the kind of
money they have spent without knowing they will have a battle and will have to diminish their e xpectations . Give them a
reasonable ma x imum square footage ie; 50,000, which will more reasonably fit the neighborhood's character, and they
should accept it. Hold fast on the one story underground garage . The possibility of damage to neighboring properties by
a two story underground parking lot, is certified as real by expert professional testimony. Raymond M Toney, 453
Allberto Way, Unit #241 Los Gatos, Ca. 95032
443 Alberto Way 8224
Los Gatos, CA
January 28, 2018
Commissioners on the Planning Commission :
I attended the December meeting when the Commission discussed the proposed 401-409
Alberto Way project. Although I was pleased t hat there was recognition of the residents '
concerns about views , as evidenced by a successful motion to redesign the north building to a
one story building in order to preserve some of the view , I was totally flabbergasted that the
issue of traffic was not of primary consideration .
It appears that the traffic study of Hexagon and the ITE manual rule the decision , whether or not
they consider all the relevant circumstances and the changes that have occurred. Did the study
take into consideration the 100 additional cars at the end of the street at 4 75 Alberto? If it is
true that the Planning Commission is required to use these documents in their del iberations , is
the Commission precluded from using common sense? A reasonable person simply needs to
experience the difference between Alberto Way and any other street that houses a building
similar to the proposed building . For example, look at 750 University. This is a two story
building of less than 70,000 square feet with a similar number of vehicles. This section of
University is a thoroughfare with two lanes plus a middle turn ing lane , a very wide street of
commercial establishments as well as residential apartments. There is no comparison! Alberto
Way is a dead end street -one way in and one way out. It is narrow with barely enough street
room for two lanes. When cars are parked on the sides of the street , it is less than two lanes.
The congestion and gridlock that would be created at the corner of Highway 9 and Alberto Way ,
extending to the corner of Los Gatos Boulevard , would be unbearable .
Do yourselves a favor and take a field trip to both locations. You will see and e xperience
exactly what I have described .
Please reconsider all the problems with this proposal on this particu lar site .
Sincerely,
Kalane McDonald
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
. Dick McGowan <dickmcgowanll4@gmail.com >
Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:35 PM
Jennifer Armer
Alberto way
We here at the Commons have all written our concerns about this very large project that is looming over us,the
traffic,congestion and just a feeling that our little street won't feel like home anymore if this is built(we know something
will be built) but I'm so unnerved by Mr.Lamb for not showing any humanity or sympathy to the people that live here .
Am hoping the Planning Commission will hear us loud and clear.
Thank you for taking this Jennifer.
Connie and Richard Mcgowan@ The Commons
453 Alberto way #158
Sent from my iPad
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Armer
Jean Riney-Niewiadom ski < riney.niewiadomski @gmail.com >
Tuesday, February 06, 2018 8:35 PM
Jennifer Armer
401-405 Alberto Way Project
I am writing in response to the recent plans presented for the Alberto Way project. My mother lives in the
neighborhood at the Los Gatos Commons and has shared the plans with me as well as the impact on the long term Los
Gatos Commons residents. I am very alarmed to here that the Los Gatos Planning Commission would consider such a
project in a very fragile area both environmentally and socially. This project would create a considerable amount of
noise as well as traffic. Additionally, this location is already needing an increase in safety measures (visible sidewalks
and adequate lighting) as I am surprised we have not had a community member hit by a moving vehicle . I urge you to
deny this request. Please be considerate of the good citizens you have residing in the neighborhood and the
overwhelming request from the neighborhood to deny this development. As both a homeowner and a taxpayer in the
town of Los Gatos please deny and restore my faith in our town leadership and that the ultimate goal is to represent the
community and be "of the community".
Sincerely,
Jean Niewiadomski
riney.niewiadomski@gmail.com
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marietta Riney < mariettariney@gmail.com >
Wednesday, January 31, 2018 12:52 PM
Jennifer Armer
Rachel Mansfield -Howlett, Attorney , comments on EIR prepared for 401 -405 Alberto
Wa y project
To Jennifer Armer and Planning Commissioners:
Please give the comments by our legal counsel,Ms. Mansfield -Howlett, another review . She has identified where the
EIR fails to analyze the scope of this projects' impacts on the areas of traffic, hydrology, soil subsidence, health, and
safety . Therefore, as a result, there are insufficient mitigations or any alternative proposals that would reduce or avoid
the very significant impacts.
This analysis by Ms. Mansfield -Howlett identifies the areas where the under reporting of the severity of impact or
absence of full disclosure, fails to conform to CEQA's requirement to function as a full disclosure document. Please see
the many Court decisions Ms. Mansfield-Howlett provides to support this conclusion.
The concern I wish to express is why the authors of the EIR have failed so miserably to do their job by not acknowledging
the significant impacts that will result in all areas of traffic, hydrology, soil subsidence, health, and safety. A project of
the scope requires a more thorough and honest assessment of it's ramifications for the primary site, neighboring home
sites, and the community at large. Did the commissioners get an opportunity to study Ms. Mansfield-Howlett letter or
was this an oversight?
Please give our legal counsel's letter the attention that is required to make an informed decision moving forward.
Thank you for your attention .
Marietta Riney
449 Alberto Way# 240
Los Gatos, CA 95032
PROVENCHER & FLATT, LLP
823 Sonoma Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Phone: 707-284.2380 Fax: 707-284.2387
Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP, Associate Planner
Los Gatos Planning Commission
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos CA 95030
planning@losgatosca.gov
iarmer@losgatosca.gov
May 4, 2017
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Douglas B. Provencher
Gail F. Flatt
OF COUNSEL
Janis H. Grattan
Rachel Mansfield-Howlett
Roz Bateman Smith
Via Electronic Delivery
RE: Comments on the EIR prepared for the 401-409 Alberto Way Project
Dear Ms. Armer and Planning Commissioners:
On behalf of the Alberto Way Neighbors: Los Gatos Commons, Pueblo de
Los Gatos, Las Casitas and Bella Vista Village, thank you for the opportunity to
comment on the adequacy of the EIR prepared for the above named Project.
I have reviewed the EIR and the associated reports prepared for the
Project, including engineering expert Peter Geissler's March 31, 2017 report and
the addendum to his report that will be submitted to you today, that detailed the
numerous and grave errors and omissions in the analysis of the Project's direct
and indirect impacts. In my professional opinion, having successfully litigated
similar cases, the EIR fails to adequately analyze the Project's direct and indirect
impacts related to traffic, hydrology, flooding, run off, seismic/liquefaction, and
health and safety and fails to propose adequate mitigation or consider
alternatives to the Project that would substantially reduce or avoid these impacts.
The EIR must evaluate a project's likely secondary or indirect impacts
along with its direct impacts. (El Dorado Union High School District v. City of
Placerville (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 123; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford
(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692.) Analysis should include social and economic effects
that could lead to physical environmental impacts. ( Citizens for Quality Growth v.
City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433.) The amount of discussion and
analysis for an environmental impact evaluated in an EIR should be proportional
Page 1 of 6
to its severity and the probability of occurrence and correspond to the degree of
specificity involved in the project being evaluated. (Guideline §15146.)
Mr. Geissler's reports provide ample foundation for the Planning
Commission to find that the analysis conducted for the Project is inadequate and
incomplete and fails to divulge the severity of the Project's direct and indirect
impacts such that the EIR's conclusions and the reports it relies upon are not
supported by substantial evidence. The EIR fails to conform to CEQA' s
requirement to function as a full disclosure document and an environmental
alarm bell that puts the public and decision-makers on notice regarding the
Project's environmental effects so that adequate mitigation and alternatives may
be fairly considered prior to the Project's adoption. (Rural Landowners Association
v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020; County of lnyo v. Yorty (1973) 32
Cal.App.3d 795, 810; Guideline §15151. " ... the preparation of an EIR is the key
to environmental protection under CEQA, ... " No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
(1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 82; §21151.)
Mr. Geissler demonstrates that the Project's impacts are substantially
more severe than have been acknowledged and the feasibility of important
mitigation measures and alternatives that have not been considered as required
by CEQA. (Public Resources Code §21166(c); Guideline §15162(a)(3.) An EIR's
analysis of environmental impacts must be sufficient to provide lead agencies
with information that will enable them to make a decision that "intelligently
takes account of environmental consequences." (San Francisco Ecology Center v.
City and County of San Francisco (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 584; Kings County Farm
Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692.) Here, the EIR fails to
provide the information needed to account for the environmental consequences
of the Project, including the foreseeable indirect impacts to neighboring
properties. The EIR therefore cannot be certified as proposed and should be
revised and re-circulated for comment prior to further consideration of the
Project.
Abuse of discretion in certifying an EIR is assessed in two separate
prongs, each of which presents an issue of law based on the administrative
record. The sufficiency of EIR content is reviewed as to whether it was prepared
"in the manner required by law" within statutory and regulatory requirements.
The sufficiency of the EIR' s conclusions is then reviewed for substantial evidence.
Vineyard Area Citizens v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 427, 435 (" A
Court's task is to determine 'whether the administrative record demonstrates any
legal error ... and whether it contains substantial evidence" supporting the
agency's findings; Association of Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107
Cal.App.4th 1383, 1391; Sierra Club v. State Board of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215.
Page 2 of 6
Here, the EIR is insufficient under both prongs; it neither provides the required
content and its conclusions of no impact are not supported.
Mr. Geissler's expert analyses and determinations provide, inter alia, the
following.
• The ground floor to groundwater elevation provides unsafe conditions,
therefore the Project's impacts have not fully acknowledged and adequate
mitigation has not been proposed.
• There is no logical basis for the claim that the site is not susceptible to
liquefaction in the event of strong shaking due to a nearby earthquake and
therefore the Project's impacts have not been fully acknowledged and
adequate mitigation has not been proposed.
• EN GEO' s assertion that seasonal fluctuations in groundwater mimic the
effects of construction dewatering is false. Seasonal fluctuations in the
depth of groundwater can cause foundation settlement but not differential
foundation settlement. By contrast, construction dewatering induces
differential foundation settlement. Cracked slabs are associated with
differential foundation settlement not uniform settlement.
•
•
•
•
EN GEO' s analysis of health and safety impacts is incorrect; EN GEO used
an outdated map dated 1991. The more recent 2002 map shows that the
proposed development is located within the Fault Rupture Hazard Zone
and the Liquefaction Zone.
Due to Differential Foundation Settlement a mat slab foundation cannot
be uniformly supported by subgrade soils subject to liquefaction in the
event of strong shaking due to a nearby earthquake unless the mat
foundation exceeds 4' in thickness. Subsequent structural cracks allow
massive influx of groundwater.
Percolation analysis was based on the performance of a 1' thick garage
slab floor subject to liquefaction in the event of strong shaking due to a
nearby earthquake which would allow the influx of approximately 500
gallons per minute into the underground garage. This amount of water
leakage cannot be controlled by the use of the Project's proposed sump
pumps and is inadequate to ensure the public's safety.
The permitting of an underground garage in an area that is subject to the
inundation of floodwaters in the event of an upstream dam failure
Page 3 of 6
represents unnecessary and unreasonable risk to h ealth and safety.
• Leniham Dam is located adjacent to the Fault Rupture Hazard Zone.
Strong shaking in the Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone is likely to
cause the earthen dam to fail. The 2012 Terra / GeoPentech report does
not take into account the close proximity between Leniham Dam and the
Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone. Therefore, ENGEO's unfounded
reliance upon the findings and conclusions of the 2012 Terra/ GeoPentech
Leniham report represents a failure to comply with the standard of care of
the engineering profession.
• ENGEO stated, " ... the construction of a subsurface garage will not
dramatically impede groundwater flow." Geissler Engineering pointed
out that the construction of a subsurface garage necessarily impedes
groundwater flow; the flow of groundwater is diverted around the
underground parking garage. There is an increased level of groundwater
on the upstream side of the underground parking garage and a decreased
level of groundwater on the downstream side of the underground parking
garage which leads to cracked slabs in neighboring building. This is an
indirect impact that must be analyzed in the EIR.
• A 12-inch thick slab floor is too flexible to span over areas of soil
subsidence caused by liquefaction and too weak to prevent cracking. In
comparable situations in San Francisco where liquefaction causes soil
subsidence, 48-inch thick mat slabs are proposed. If the top of slab of the
underground garage is located below the groundwater then the influx of
groundwater into the cracked underground parking structure, water
floods the damaged and submerged underground garage leading to
health and safety impacts.
Alternatives
The EIR also failed to: consider a reasonable range of alternatives that
would significantly reduce or avoid the Project's impacts; identify an
environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project alternative, and;
identify alternatives considered and excluded from EIR analysis or to provide the
reasons for their rejection . ( Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors ( Goleta
II) 52 Cal.3d 553,569; Guideline §15126.6(b). Where no alternatives are deemed
feasible, the EIR is required to disclose the reasons why possible alternatives
were found infeasible and did not do so. (Laurel Height s Improvement Association
v. UC Regents (Laurel Heights I) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405.) The EIR failed to
consider alternate sites as required by both public and private development
projects. ( Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors ( Goleta II) (1990) 52 Cal.3d
553, 574-575; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta I) (1988) 197
Page 4 of 6
Cal.App.3d 1167, 1179-1180. EIRs "must consider a reasonable range of
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project.")
An EIR must consider a "range of reasonable alternatives." Citizens of
Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta II) (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Re sidents
AdHoc Stadium Committee v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274; Guideline
§15126.6(c). The range must be sufficient "to permit a reasonable choice of
alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned"; San Bernardino Valley
Audubon Society v. County of San Bernardino, supra, 155 Cal.App.3d at 750-751;
Guideline §§15126.6(c), (f). Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. (Public
R esources Code §21061.1; Guideline §15364.)
• Increased costs of an alternative do not equate to economic infeasibility:
"[t]he fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is
not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is
required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are
sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project."
(Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta I) (1988) 197
Cal.App.3d 1167, 1181; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990)
221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736.)
Here, considering the Project's unacknowledged impacts in the issue areas
described herein, the EIR did not consider a reasonable range of alternatives that
took into account these impacts and there is no information in the record that
could credibly provide the basis for finding that such alternatives are infeasible
based upon economic infeasibility. Since the EIR found that the Reduced Project
Alternative meets most Project objectives and should be considered as a feasible
Project alternative, it is clear that a range of alternatives that would meet most
objectives could easily be configured to reduce or completely avoid the Project's
impacts related to the hydrology and seismic issues that have been raised by Mr.
Geissler and concerned area residents. The EIR should be revised and re-
circulated to provide an adequate alternatives analysis and to identify an
environmentally superior alternative, other than the No Project alternative.
Traffic
The EIR failed to adequately respond to and incorporate mitigation
measures proposed by the Santa Clara Transportation Authority. "[C]omments
from responsible experts or sister agencies ... that cause concern that the agency
may not have fully evaluated the project" may not be ignored. (Berkeley Keep Jets
over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Cmr's. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1367
quoting Cleary v. County of Stanislaus, (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 348, 357.)
Page 5 of 6
For the foregoing reasons, and as articulated in the reports of Mr. Geissler,
incorporated herei n by reference, the EIR should not be certified as complete.
Thank you for your consideration,
~rtvf;t]
Rachel Mansfield-Howlett
Page 6 of 6
Jan 30 2018
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos , CA
RE : 401-409 Alberto Way
Dear Commissioners,
RECEIVED
FEB O 5 2018
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLA NN ING DIVISION
I feel this is my hometown. I was born to look at the beautiful mountains. My first
home was on University then Pollard Road, and now Alberto Way. I have always
viewed this range of mountains. The view is at risk due to the development of RE
Design 3. Can you please support on record that 74,260 sq. ft . does not address the
other guideline design problems that you denied in May 2017?
Please respect our views, as many seem to be saying the same thing. I have a little
dog and walk him daily. I never go near property, as it is clear, we are not welcome.
A dog run is nice but not the same as the peaceful view of our MOUNTAINS.
I believe his reduction was not discussed. There are inconsistencies Jike the size of
the project is out of scale with all the other structures on our street. It undermines
our sense of place.
Why did the Town Attorney give a dismissal on our EIR letter from our lawyer?? I
feel this does not give us a fair playing field .
In the meeting we had with the developer there were deep concerns about his
attitude towards us. He misrepresented the square footage and volume. It was hard
to~~ct~
Thank you for reading this
Kathy Figueroa
Resident of Los Gatos Commons.
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To the Planning Commission;
Joan K Larson <joanklarson@aol.com >
Tuesday, February 06, 2018 11:50 AM
Jennifer Armer
401 -409 Alberto Way
At the January 10th meeting it was stated that there was a traffic study for 150 cars . I heard that it was done a couple
years ago . Since then there has been more construction that would affect traffic. Also has North 40 development been
con sidered since it will bring additional traffic to our roads . The study needs to be updated.
The proposed building for the corner of Alberto Way is much too large if the size requires around 300 parking spots .
That's double the 150 of the study.
Was the study even done for a DEAD END ROAD?
So near an entrance and exit to a major highway (Route 17). A left turn from Los Gatos Saratoga Road (Route 9) into
Alberto Way has at best space for 5 cars. A truck or two would decrease those vehicles in the turning lane . Creating a
backup of traffic. How would emergency vehicles get through?
This would be worse during the demolition and excavation, construction phase but even afterwards with the additional
heavy traffic.
The whole process of demolition and deep excavation will cause more pollution. Poor air quality. Many seniors can only
exercise by walking. Some with canes and walkers . When we walk we enjoy the views around u s. The re cent design of
the proposed building is still too large and blocking views . And the building does not "fit" with the other developments
on Alberto Way . Not only will this building block our views, it will also block the roads with additional cars because of its
size .
Also the Hydrology Report by Peter Geissler should Not be ignored . We need to have equal treatment and to be heard .
We are aware that something will be developed there. We hope this current design will not be approved.
Many streets in Los Gatos have restrictions for residential parking only. There is a definite need for residents to have
insured parking with posted signs and for it to be enforced .
Thank you .
Jo an K Larson . Los Gato s Commons
441 Alberto Way #114
408-348-6698
Sent from my iPhone
Planning Commissioners
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
Dear Commissioners,
Arbitrary is a word used for something not well analyzed ; not
objectively arrived at. This word appears appropriate to a number
of policies in the 401-409 Alberto Way project.
The build i ng size for re-design three (based on an alterative in EIR)
of 74,260 sq. ft. is according to the author of the EIR "just a
number". It was not objectively arrived at by an in-depth analysis
of the surroundings and the site.
Per conversation with myself, Mr. Arters, one of the developers,
stated that the dog park idea came about after a conversation he
had with two residents. The majority of residents have expressed
no interest in the dog park . We see this as an example of how out
of touch the developer is to the real concerns of the residents.
The project size is NOT based on market need. In listening to the
testimony of the developer for Winchester Shelburne project
(TCM 10/17/2017), there is a category of office building space
NOT being met in Los Gatos. The real market need is for office
space between 15,000 to 30,000 sq. ft.
It is not well understood why the town's attorney dismissed the
Rachel Mansfield-Howlett's letter on the EI R. Since no counter
argument supported by case law was given, the dismissal must be
considered in the arbitrary column .
What are NOT arbitrary are the following facts that are based on
law and policy.
1) The law of topography: Alberto Way will remain a dead end
street. The option to open it up to Pine Ave was discarded
as too steep. (Discussion for 475-485 zone change hearing).
Therefore seniors on Alberto Way will continue to be
squeezed between two commercial developments.
2) The Bylaws of the Los Gatos Commons (LGC) Homeowners
Association : Per those LGC guidelines, this is a senior age
restricted condo complex. Therefore, Alberto Way will
remain as a SENIOR DOMINANT residential street . Not long
ago, the Los Gatos General Plan for 2020 touted the Los
Gatos Commons as a unique Independent senior community
where you could own your home. What happened to that
special recognition? What happened to being "Age
Friendly"?
Please consider all the facts based on real life experiences,
objectivity, and town policies . Deny this project until the
developer brings in a building that opens up the scenic views of
the Santa Cruz Mountains . A set back of 80 feet on the north
property line would give the residents that view corridor. The
town must stand by its' guidelines of promoting small town
character and making sure that new developments blend with
existing unique neighborhoods .
Thank you Planning Commissioners for all your hard work on this
project.
Marilyn Basham,
Resident of Los Gatos Commons
I am asking the Planning Commission to deny the project. Over the past 2 years there has
been numerous occasion where the developer has continually refused to listen to the to the
suggestions of the Alberto residents and planning commission and finally has refused to
make any changes in Redesign 3, despite direction from the Commission .
Here are my reasons for the request to deny this project
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.
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 equipment, PGE
digging up the roads, Cal trans digging up the streets is not only dangerous to us but makes
no sense.
The reduction of the building to 74,260 does not protect the existing view corridor to
the Santa Cruz Mountains on the north side of the site.
The proposed reduction to 74.260 does not address the inconsistencies with the
General Plan and Commercial Design Guidelines that were cited by the Planning
Commission when they denied the 83,000 sq. ft. project in May 2017.
The developer's argument that the 74.260 footage should be approved because a
further reduction would be economically infeasible is not relevant, according to two
Town Council members and the research our attorney did on case law on the subject. The
developer's figures in his justification letter for Redesign 3 show he saved money by
reducing the building size and garage size. Presumably, he would save more by a further
small reduction.
Resident of Pueblo de Los Gatos
Thomas Dunn
February 7, 2018
To the Planning Commission :
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
CLERK DEPARTMENT
RECEIVED
20 1s rrn -1 P 2= 3 w
We the Boards of Directors for Alberto Way home owner organizations, representing some 400
residents of Alberto Way, ask you not to approve the Redesign 3 project and not to approve the
Architectural Site and CUP applications for the 401-409 Alberto Way project. 1 The Redesign
largely blocks our remaining view corridor to the Santa Cruz Mountains. We have not been
able to prevent the complete blocking of our view from the southern side of the site. We ARE
NOT PREPARED TO GIVE UP OUR VIEW FROM THE NORTH . The developer's latest proposal still
blocks our view (see attached illustrations 1, la, 2, 2a)). We have four major arguments.
FIRST, the Planning Commission 's motion gave the developer two options: to redesign the
project with a combination single/two story building (s) OR to increase the setback from the
north property line in order to increase the neighbors' view (1:42:52). The developer
completely ignored the simpler option (increased setback) and focused on dismantling the
more complicated alternative option. This should not be allowed by the Planning Commission.
On October 3, the developer offered the Town Council a reduction of 4,000 (one Council
member heard 4-5,000) sq. ft. on the north to protect the view corridor on the north. The
developer amended that reduction from 79,000 to 74,260 sq. ft. But that reduction to 74,260
does not preserve our existing pre-project public view corridor to the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Moreover, that number was not derived objectively.
Only ONE Town Council member mentioned the number 74,260. Ex-Mayor Sayoc said
(1.25.21), "I want to see a project here that fulfills the priorities of the applicant but I'm positive
there is a square footage that we can reach that can come to a compromise . . . . I don't know
what that number is." Her concern was "objectivity": (1.41.30} "One number that should be
utilized and LOOKED AT with more strength than all the others is the number that was
presented in the EIR that had some authority rather than just random numbers being thrown
out." (1 .53.47) She asked the Planning Commission to focus on objective criteria.
With all due respect , we pointed out that Richard James , author of the DEIR, said that the figure
of 74 ,260 was "not a number determined by analysis"; it was "just a number," "qualitative
rather than quantitative." The figure was arbitrary, not objective. The contract with the Town
allowed for only two alternatives. We believe a third alternative, intermediate between 31,000
and 74,260, would have been more appropriate, albeit subjective.
1 Lo s Gatos Town Code . The d eci ding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may deny a
conditional use permit for a new office building if any of the following findings are made: (1) The proposed use of
the pro perty is not in harmony with specific provisions or objectives of the general plan and the purposes of this
chapter.
An object iv e analysis is: How much more reduction would it take to preserve our existing view
(i.e., to produce an 80 foot setback)? The answer is roughly 10,132 sq . ft . (See attached
illustration 3). This setback would require pushing back OR removing a 36 X 146 section of the
Redesign 3 two-story building. A removal could result in a building size of 64,000 sq. ft . We are
convinced that a 64,000 sq. ft. building would be much better for the neighborhood and the
neighbors. It would blend better with the two largest developments on the street (Pueblo de
Los Gatos and Alberto Oaks, each about 56,000 sq . ft.) and the reduction from 298 cars to 256
would help in "lived experience," which is a better reflection of how we would be impacted
than Hexagon's statistical average method .
SECOND, this Planning Commission motion follows the Town Council discussion in linking the
redu ction to the protection of the vi ew from the north (10/3/17).
SPECTOR: (26 .46) She said she was told by the developer "the size of the building could
be or might be reduced by 4-5,000 sq . ft . with the elimination of the upper right portion of the
building." (1.50.45) "I'm looking to have the mass of the building be reduced so that hopefully
the hillsides are not covered."
RENNIE: (1.11.37) "For me, I look at not whether it's a yes or no. It's how do we make
the project acceptable . For sure we need to take off the 4,000 sq . ft . that were mentioned [by
the developer in a phone call] off the north end of the building. So that target is a view corridor
for the people walking by that. They have it now."
JENSEN: (1.46.17) making a motion: "What I'm looking for is what was indicated in our
disclosures, which was we were looking for at least a 4,000 sq . ft. reduction on the north end ."
Two motions that used the 4,000 sq. ft. reduction proposed by the developer failed . Sayoc
and Spector and Leonardis voted aga inst it.
LE ONARDIS: (1.44.50) "The public was looking for a significant reduction in sq. footage. The
applicant says it doesn't pencil out unless I can get this much square footage. . . . By sending it
back with only 4,000 sq. ft. less I think would be errant .... The Planning Commission will vet
very well for us."
Spector's motion, that passed unanimously, remanded the applicat ion back to the Planning
Commiss ion without direction t o consider any particul a r siz e reduct ion. Attorney Schultz told
the Planning Commission January 10 that the Commission 's hands were "not tied to decide how
you want to rule on this project" by the Town Council 's deliberations. The Commission 's
decision on Redesign 3 was de novo (32:17).
THIRD, not only does a reduction of 8,740 (from 83,000 to 74,260) not protect our existing
view. It does not address the reasons that the Planning Commission denied the project at
83,000 sq . ft. (Planning Commission Hearing, 5/10), namely, inconsistencies with the General
Plan (LU 1.4, 1.8, 6.5) and Commercia l Design Guidelines (1.4). 2
Moreover, let's compare the 74,260 number with the hypothetical 64,000 along the lines of the
DEIR's assessment of how well the objectives of the proposed project would be met. There are
11 objectives (6: 6-7). There are 7 objectives that are objective: Class A office with an energy
efficient and sustainable building that meets LEED standards; attractive pedestrian space;
additional plantings along LG/S Rd.; opportunity for pedestrian and bike connectivity to the
Town; net positive fiscal impact; TDM plan; incentives to employees to use public transit, car
pools, etc. A 64,000 sq. ft. building can meet these objectives. There are four clearly subjective
objectives: high quality architecture with design features that blend with aesthetics, scale, and
character of surrounding land uses; satisfaction of market demand for high tech office uses in
Class A office space (larger floor plates, onsite employee amenities); compliance with all
applicable General Plan goals and policies as well as Town code; utilization of building setbacks
and landscaping to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The 64,000 sq. foot
building would blend better, comply with the General Plan better, and minimize impacts better
than the 74,260 one. How large a floor plate should be and what employee amenities are
needed depend on qualitative analysis . And there are multiple definitions of "Class A"
standard.
FOURTH, economic feasibility of a project is not supposed to be a factor in the Town's decision
on a project, according to two Town Council members to whom representatives from The
Commons spoke. We also point out that in a letter previously submitted 9/13/17, our attorney
Rachel Mansfield-Howlett addressed case law on economic feasibility. She found that a
developer's assertion that a smaller project is infeasible does not meet the standards of
infeasibility laid out in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors. What is required is
evidence that the lost profitability is sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed
with the project (Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1181). 3
Moreover, Attorney Guerra argues that floor plates of 37,000 sq. ft . are "very desirable" in a
Class A market and that a building with less would be less desirable and "infeasible from leasing
marketability, usability, and economic standpoints." There is no evidence that a 64,000 sq. ft.
Class A office building would not find tenants in Los Gatos . Currently, there are Class A
buildings in Los Gatos (south of Lark) with square footage ranging from 6,915 (16268 Los Gatos
2 In addition, the Commission pointed to inconsistencies with 25 additional General Plan policies not identified by
number but by quoting or paraphrasing them (Letter to Town Council, 9/13/2017, from Los Gatos Commons.)
3 See also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App .3d 692, 736; City of Fremont v. San
Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (1995) 34 Cal.App.3d 1780.
Planning Commission
February 7, 2018
Dear Commiss ioners,
I have attended five Planning Commission and two Town Council meetings on the
Alberto Way project. After four of those Planning Comm i ssion meetings, I left
reassured that the General Plan and Commercial Design Guidelines were at the
forefront of the deliberations. The 1/10 meeting was extremely disturbing, and I
(and I think my Alberto Way neighbors) were shaken by what we heard and did
not hear.
One Commissioner said that there would be no difference for the neighbors if the
project was in the 60,000s or 70,000s. This assumes that the neighbors are not
thinking logically or reasonably . We are not children, sufferers of dementia (yet),
or "Not In My Backyarders ." A building in the low 60,000s would blend better
into the neighborhood and do less damage to the character and sense of place
than a 74,260 sq. ft. b uilding. There are two structures of about 56,000 sq . ft. on
the street and one with two bu i ldings facing the street (about 50,000 sq . ft. in
total) so a building in the low 60,000s would be closer in scale and mass to severa l
buildings there than would one 74,260 . As we have pointed out, a reduction to
64,000 wou ld protect and preserve the only view we have left. The reduction in
traffic-about 50 cars-is not i nsign ificant from the Alberto Way res i dents' point
of view. Some Commissioners seem to think it would not matter, but during the
morn i ng and evening rushes SO fewer cars could help people w ith medical
appointments or other emergencies get through the intersection more quickly.
I do not understand why at prior Planning Commission meetings, Commissioners
referred to the General Plan and Commercial Design Guidelines as "our Bible ," yet
on 1/10 those policies did not seem to matter in the discussion of Redesign 3.
Yes , there was support on 1/10 for protecting our view from the north side of the
site, but I (and we residents, I bel ieve) feel sick at the thought that the
Commission will not hold firm on that. Although the loss of views is not the only
concern we have, it is a very important one to the residents of Alberto Way .
Why the change in the Planning Commission's approach to the Alberto Way
application? I was shocked to hear Commissioners talking about what they
"assumed" that the Town Council wanted or what the Council "seemed " to want .
The motion that passed did not specify a reduction to any specific number and
the remanded case was supposed to be decided de nova . The developer slipped
in his offer of a 4,000 sq . ft. reduction after the public comments were closed .
The Alberto Way residents had no chance to weigh in on whether a building in the
high 70,000s would be appropriate for the site. This was not fair to us and it is
also unfair to have a decision on this case based on speculation about what the
Town Council will do.
We neighbors were urged to compromise with the developer. This we have done .
We began by requesting a redesign of what was there {31,000 sq. ft.) and
preservation of our views from the north and south sides of the site. Now we
have accepted someth i ng in the low 60,000s {64,000 is the objective number) and
preservation of the north side view . We "came up" 30,000 sq. ft., while the
developer has "come down" 18,000 sq. ft. (from about 92,000 to 74,000). And he
does not recognize our concern about our views. The developer has never made
a good faith effort to negotiate with us or, frankly, with the Planning Commission .
I hope that the Planning Commission has not given up on directing the developer
to preserve our view from the north property line, even if he has to reduce the
building by a few thousand more feet.
Sincerely,
Loretta Fowler
451 Alberto Way, #247
February 7, 2018
Lo s Gatos Planning Commission
c/o Jennifer Arm er
By email: jarmer@losgatosca.gov
Re: 401-409 Alberto Way-Class A Office Space
Dear Commissioners ,
For more than a year, the Los Gatos Planning Commission and Los Gatos Town Council have heard
arguments from the developer and neighboring residents to determine the most appropriate size, mass
and scale for a commercial development to be built at 401-409 Alberto Way. The developer ha s
represented that it's not possible to build a Class A office space in less than 74,000 square feet.
I'm writing to contest this statement. I've concluded research on this topic both online and with brokers
at Cushman & Wakefield, the leasing broker for the Alberto Oaks office park at the end of Alberto Way.
I learned from these brokers and BOMA (the Building Owners and Managers Association
International) that Class A Office space is not defined by the size of the building but instead by the
quality of the construction, its location, its amenities and its newness.
Class A (See "Three Classes of Offices" from The Balance)
https://www.theba lance.com/classes-of-office-b u il d ings-2866557)
Not all office buildings are t h e same, which is why a general cla ssification system exists to
categorize them by age , amenities, aesthet i cs and general infrastructure . Commerc ia l real
es t at e brokers use these classes to prepare market data and justify the prices of spaces within
office bu il di ngs . Because many factors go into pricing office space, some experts argue that the
classifications are subjective.
The highest-quality office spaces on the market are considered Cl ass A. Genera ll y speaking,
these spaces are newly constructed and have been outfitted with top-of-the-lin e fi xtures,
amenities and systems . Class A build in gs are aesthetically pleasing and have a notable presence
in high -visibility locations such as a city's central business district, notes the Building Owners and
Managers Association lnternational (BOMA). These spaces are normally maintained by reputable
property management companies who keep them looking impeccable .
Height is another common characteristic of Class A buildings. Many high-rises are considered
Class A buildings and the office spaces inside these structures tend to have higher ceilings as
well. A large centra l l obby is al so typica l in buildings in this category.
(401-409 Alberto Way) -Page 2 of 2
According to brokers at Cushman and Wakefield, size does not distinguish Class A office space from Class
Band C. Determining Class A office space is a subjective decision. They provided two samples of Class
A offices currently on the market in Los Gatos that are significantly smaller than 74,000 square feet.
Please see attachment for these listings at 750 University Avenue (62 ,109sf) owned by McCandless
Management and 16268 Los Gatos Blvd .(6,915sf) owned by Fox Creek Fund LLC. See also their
examples of Class B office space in Los Gatos, attached.
We implore the Planning Commission to find an accommodation between the developer and
neighboring residents and request:
1. The Planning Commission reject outright the developer's representation that a Class A office
building cannot be built in less than 74,000 square feet.
2. The Planning Commission conclude that a reduction to 64,000sf would meet the objectives of
neighboring residents and the developer by:
Regards,
a. Reducing the size, mass and scale of this project while preserving some view of the
foothills with an 80-foot set-back to allow for a view corridor and simultaneously
b. Satisfy the developer's business objectives.
Melanie Kemp
Bella Vista Village homeowner
Representative to the Bella Vista Village Homeowner's Association
me lan ie .kemp@c bnorca l.com
408.805.1555
Jennifer Armer
From : Linda Robles [mailto :linrobles@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 8:39 PM
To : Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Re: 401-409 Alberto Way -New Hearing Date 2/14/18
Dear Planning Commission Members,
As a homeowner in Los Gatos Commons I am requesting that you deny approval of the Redesign 3 project. One
reason is the developers refusal to make any changes to preserve our view of the mountains . As ha s been
demonstrated the 74,260 footage still blocks most of our view and this reduction in footage did not address the
inconsistencies with the General Plan and Commercial Design Guidelines that the Planning Commission identified when
this project was denied in May, 2017. The size of this project continues to be out of scale with the other structures on
the street and undermines the character of the existing buildings.
A few days ago as I was driving down Alberto Way there were cars parked on both sides of the street and cars traveling
in both directions. Thi s relatively narrow street is not easy to navigate, especially for Senior drivers. It occurred to me
that Alberto Way is similar to a bottle .... one way In and one way out!! The addition of 300+ cars to the neck of this bottle
will be like a cork that will block the entrance!! I dread to think what will happen to those living at the dead end of this
street if there is a fire or emergency at "starting or quitting time" at 401-409 Alberto Way.
The Seniors and many others living on Alberto Way have very few options to relocate . For many, this is their retirement
home. Please consider their quality of life and safety as you make your decision. If this project in it's current form is
approved, "Would you want to live on Alberto Way?"
Sincerely yours,
Linda Schneider
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
M. Claire Ferguson <m.claireferguson @y ahoo .com >
Wednesday, February 07 , 2018 11:28 PM
Jennifer Armer
Subject: Letter from owner & senior resident on Alberto Way
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message :
From: Monya Lane <bryant44@com cas t.net>
Date: February 4, 2018 at 5:42 :0 .1 PM PST
To: m .c laireferguson@yahoo.com
Subject: Risks to homeowners on Alberto Way from proposed oversized (74K sq ft) replacement to the
existing structure (31K sq ft) @ 401-409 Alberto Way
The residents of Alberto Way continue to have multiple issues with the proposed development. The
previous commercial landscape was in keeping and balance with the primarily residential street, and
while it is understandable that someone would want to make an increased profit on this corner, the
serious risks and exposure that the current proposal would place on the residents of the small
neighborhood should clearly outweigh these increased profit considerations .
Another serious issue is the negative effect the current proposal would place on residential property
values on Alberto Way. The proposed oversized development at 74,000 sq. ft. to replace a 31,000 sq. ft.
existing commercial building would be the prominent feature of the neighborhood instead of blending
in, and would give the appearance of the existing residences being hemmed in by the commercial
activity. This would be such a significant change to the character of the neighborhood as to encumber
any future sales. In addition, the proposed two-level garage has a publicized engineering risk to nearby
homeowners which obviously will make property purchase less desirable and therefore decrease
property values. People buy property in Los Gatos partly because it's a good investment, not to see their
property values go down due a decision like this.
Current and future residents are there to enjoy the peaceful ambience and quality of life that Alberto
Way presents, with minimal commercial presence and traffic. The bottom line is the current proposal is
unacceptable due to the traffic-caused safety risk, environmental emissions effects, and property value
decrease that would result.
Sent from my iPhone
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Jennifer,
Sharon Martin <sharon.hanley.martin @gmail.com >
Thursda y, February 08, 2018 10 :24 AM
Jennifer Armer
RE : Planning Committee Hearing on February 14th
I very important decision is coming up concerning the construction of the Commercial Bu ilding on the corner of Highway
9 and Alberto Way. Just a few thoughts I would like to share :
Am I oppo sed to that corner being developed, no! I do object to the size of the building as it affects the people who
live on Alberto Way . This quiet street will be impacted with heavy traffic, and our ability to safely drive in this area . The
developers have tried to minimize their impact on our quality of life. This decision in their favor, will make highway 9 a
night mare & will forever impact anyone using that road to access Los Gatos and Los Gatos Blvd .
My home has cracks in the ceiling due to the earth settling. When they excavate for the underground parking, it will
only make my ceilings worse than they already are!
The developers continue to pay the homeowners lip service and downplay our concerns for our community. Please
think twice, before giving them the go ahead for this project.
Sincerely,
Sharon Martin
Sent from my iPad
To: Town of Los Gatos Jennifer T. Armer, ACIP
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
110 E Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030
Email: J armer@LosGatosCa.gov
From: Harold Vitale, 415 Alberto Way Los Gatos CA 95032
Email: hsvitale@comcast.net
Date: February 8, 2018
Dear Jennifer & Town Planning Commissioners,
RECEIVED
FEB QB 2018
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING D IVISION
Your office will or has received a letter this week from Board Members of four
Alberto Way community organizations of Home Owners. That letter requests the
Planning Commission to not approve the Redesign 3 Project and not to approve the
Architectural Site and CUP applications for the 401-409 Alberto Way project.
Substantial quantitative facts are given in the letter supporting the request. Please
ponder and study the content of this letter. It is true and factual.
As a member of the Board of Los Gatos Commons, the purpose of my letter is to
express my firm support of the referenced request.
The Home Owners have given more than a fair share in their proposal to meet the
proposals of the developer. These community folks have worked hard to
communicate ideas and compassion for retaining the attractiveness of Los Gatos.
As you ponder and consider your individual votes for or against this project please
remember the neighborhood and what it means to those who live here. A majority
are elderly and rely on the peaceful and comforting atmosphere of the views and
beautiful landscaping, and safe walkways. For many their only outdoor activity is
just being outdoors and enjoying the wonders of nature and visiting with their
friends. Many are very worried that their present atmosphere will be eliminated
Once again please listen to the voices of Alberto Way residents and deny the
Redesign 3 project.
Respectfully
Harold Vitale
. Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dennis < Dennis@shraderelectricinc.com >
Thursday, February 08, 2018 2:10 PM
BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie ; Marico Sayoc; Town Manager;
Joel Paulson; Arn Andrews
voiceheard@401albertoway.com
I support 401 Alberto.
Yes, I support 401 Alberto, I believe this project will be positive for the Town of Los Gatos, merchants and neighborhood
the buildings and grounds are being improved, with the freeway interchange being at their front door the majority of
traffic will not be effected, all and all I think these Developers are very considerate of ALL around them and want to have
a project that we all can be proud of in the Town.
Thanks for listening
Dennis Shrader
Shrader Electric Inc.
1093 Florence Way
C ampbell, CA 95008
Ph : 408-371-1526 Fx : 408-371-7627
Email: dennis@Shra dere lectricinc.com
Jennifer Arme r
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Planning Commi ssion ,
J Scott <gatosbell a@ gmail.com >
Thursday, February 08, 201 8 11:00 AM
Jennifer Arm er
PROTE CT our small town characte r!
T han k you for your comm itment and integrity to see that the Alberto Way project is done right!
I tru st you will vote in a manner that is in alignment with the town's General Plan , and in doing so will deny this from
proceeding as proposed .
Why you should say no:
1) The mass and size are too big for this location period! Keep it small , protect our sunshine, mountains and happiness .
2) The additional traffic of 400 +cars exiting on to Highway 9 will cau se gridlock on Highway 9 and surrounding streets-
how will fire and ambulance navigate around th s gridlock?
Kindly,
Jannette Scott
Alberto Way
Jennifer Armer
Fr om:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
CONNIE <cgdailey@comcast.net>
Thursday, February 08, 2018 12:57 PM
Jennifer Armer
RE : Alberto Way
Public Hearting Feb 2018.docx
Public Hearting/Planning Commission February 14 2018
Architecture and Site Application 5· 15-056
The project has been determined to have a significant impact on the
environment. Once the project is completed, the developer will no longer be held
accountable for any future underground damage to existing property or
buildings. This is a serious threat to homeowners who will have to pay for the
repair of damage out of their own pockets. This will bankrupt many, as they are
seniors on fixed incomes. The underground parking garage is a disaster waiting to
happen.
Another concern about this project is the additional traffic it will bring. On any
give n day, current traffic backs up on Hwy 9 to University Avenue or beyond and
makes it almost impossible to get in or out of the neighborhood. In an emergency,
first responders will be delayed by the impasse, or those in need of help will not be
able to leave due to the congestion.
Hundreds of people live on Alberto Way and no one has the right to disrupt those
lives over a period of several years. This and the beforehand mentioned concerns
are grounds for a lawsuit against the town of Los Gatos and the developer i f this
project is approved. It's a terrible idea for this location and certainly won't be
beneficial to Los Gatos and it citizens.
George S . Daile y
441 Alberto Way #111
Los Gatos , CA 95032
408 -827-4956
cgdailey@comcast.net
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc :
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Dennis < Dennis@shraderelectricinc.com >
Thursday, February 08, 2018 2:10 PM
BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Marico Sayoc; Town Manager;
Joel Paulson; Arn Andrews
voiceheard@401albertoway.com
I support 401 Alberto.
Follow up
Flagged
Yes, I support 401 Alberto, I believe this project will be positive for the Town of Los Gatos, merchants and neighborhood
the buildings and grounds are being improved, with the freeway interchange being at their front door the majority of
traffic will not be effected, all and all I think these Developers are very considerate of ALL around them and want to have
a project that we all can be proud of in the Town.
Thanks for listening
Dennis Shrader
Shrader Electric Inc.
1093 Fl orence Way
Campbell, CA 95008
Ph : 408-371-1526 Fx: 408-371 -7627
Email : dennis@Shraderelectricinc.com
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bob Davies < bob@foothillac.com >
Thursday, February 08, 2018 3:21 PM
BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Marica Sayoc; Town Manager;
Joel Paulson; Arn Andrews
voiceheard@401albertoway.com
I support 401 Alberto.
I support this third version. It is a great addition to our town.
Bob Davies
165 highland av
Los Gatos Ca 95030
408 210 9065
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Robert Hall < rdh979@icloud.com >
Thursday, February 08, 2018 4:36 PM
BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Marice Sayoc; Town Manager;
Joel Paulson; Arn Andrews
voiceheard@401albertoway.com
I support 401 Alberto.
As I have stated previously, in my view the project proposed for 405 Alberto Way has these positive
characteristics:
• It is an attractive LEED-certified replacement of a 50 year old outmoded office building.
• It fits nicely with the look and feel of Los Gatos.
• It can provide needed local business and employment opportunities .
• It adds to the tax revenue base of Los Gatos.
• It complies with the Los Gatos building standards.
• It is an excellent location near both on and off freeway ramps.
For these reasons I urge Planning Commission Members and Town Council Members to vote for this appealing
project. It will make Los Gatos a better place .
Sincerely
Rob Hall in
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bill Giannini < bill@saratoga -springs.com >
Thursday, February 08 , 2018 4:45 PM
BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Mafcia Jensen ; Rob Rennie; Marica Sa yoc; Town Manager;
Joel Paul son; Arn Andrews
voiceheard @401alberto way .com
I support 401 Alberto.
Please approve this well thought out and needed facility without any further delay. It will be an asset to the community
and the region .
Bill Giannini
Pre sident
Saratoga Springs, Inc.
Sent from my iPhone
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Whom it May Concern,
Rick Bell <rickbell60@gmail.com >
Thursday, February 08 , 2018 5:52 PM
Jennifer Armer
405 Alberto Way, Los Goats
I would like to pledge my support for the subject project. I have followed the design and redesign of the building over
the past 2 years and feel that it would be a great asset for our community on several levels. It is my sense that the
neighborhood opposition will not be satisfied, regardless of the developer's concessions . I believe that project meets all
of the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines and General Policies and am hopeful for the city's support here forth .
Sincerely,
Rick Bell
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Michael Dern < mdern@dern-ad.com >
Thursday, February 08, 2018 10:00 PM
Jennifer Armer
voiceheard@401albertoway.com
I support 401 Alberto.
As a resident and business owner of Los Gatos, I am asking for your support of the 401 Alberto Way Project to get the
Town new Class A office space. We need local businesses to remain in Los Gatos and not move to San Jose (or other
cities) because we do not offer office and work environments within our own town. As an architect, we strive to build a
better Silicon Valley. This project is the essential base building block towards urban planning to keep businesses lo cal,
reduce traffic through the town and help build Los Gatos as a place to live and work.
Sincerely,
Michael
Michael Dern, AIA
Principal and the 2018 AIA Silicon Valley President
DERN Architecture+ Development
110 Casa Grande
Los Gatos, CA 95032
(415) 307-1283
mdern@dern-ad.com
www.dern-ad.com
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Greetings all,
pat lynch <plynch6648@yahoo .com >
Thursday, February 08 , 2018 11:15 PM
BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen ; Rob Rennie; Marica Sayoc; Town Manager;
Joel Paulson; Arn Andrews
voiceheard@401albertoway.com
I support 401 Alberto.
I believe the latest offerings for the improvement of this site are generous to the neighborhood and its occupants as well
as being appropriate for the use of the property.
It is apparent to any passerby that as it stands now the current structures and parking lots are weary and in need of
replacement. The proposed improvements would bring this property and eventually adjoining areas an uplift that will
serve the town well as an entry point and as a model of a mixed use neighborhood .
I understand that there are traffic issues of concern to the inhabitants of Alberto Way, but most of that congestion has
nothing to do with this site. The developer has gone to great effort and expense to hear, observe, and make generous
concessions for parking and offering amenities and services to the neighborhood and town residents during this
redevelopment application process . It's not possible for one applicant, or parcel of property in the town to fix all of the
traffic issues as they exist today with the highway #17 corridor bisecting the town.
I hope that those holding the authority to make this proposed regeneration of this site a reality, will grant the next step
in the process to the applicant so.that the tired and worn existing structures may be retired and vitality and life returned
to the property with new and safer buildings using the latest in energy and environmental technology to house a
modern workplace for the future decades. This site has served this town well in its past uses and it deserves the chance
to continue to do so in the future .
Pat Lynch
CWA Realty
Sent from my iPad
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gregg Carse <greggcwa@aol.com >
Friday, February 09 , 2018 8:52 AM
Jarmer@losgatosca .gov.
Randy Lamb 's application on Alberto Wa y
I wanted to send the city of Los Gatos my full support for Randy's project. I was the owner
of Los Gatos Village for over 30 years. Realizing the need to rebuild the village, I contacted
Randy (a friend with a sterling reputation) to look at buying me out and upgrading the now
very old buildings. The town of Los Altos where I live, worked with Randy on a very successful
and tasteful development on North First St. It is truly time to redevelop my old site as the
buildings were in desperate need of an upgrade. My daughter has cancer. So I did not have the
needed money to redesign Los Gatos Village. But Randy has put his heart and soul into
the project. He deserves to be given the full approval on his wonderful project. Los Gatos
is lucky to have him helping.
Gregg Carse
Former owner of Los Gatos Village
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Scott Eschen < scott@seacoastpartners.us >
Friday, February 09, 2018 10:39 AM
Jennifer Armer
Support of 405 Alberto Way Proposed Deve lopment
Dear Appointed Planning Commission Membe rs of Los Gatos:
I support 405 because it helps the downtown businesses and helps Lo s Gatos . Please approve Architectural Site Plan the
Condition Use Permit.
Please also approve the EIR as this approval has been long overdue . This developer has already proposed mitigation
measures which off set then "less than significant" impacts and , as I'm sure you are aware, they are not required in
anyway to do mitigate this low level of impact but are doing so as good stewards.
Also , see my prior support letter below sent prior to other PC hearings in 2017.
Regard s,
Scott Eschen
Seacoast Partners LLC
408-39 5-7799 Office
866-2 02-3098 Fax
Dear Appointed Planning Commission Members of Los Gatos:
I live on Belmont Ave in downtown Los Gatos and am entrepreneur and small business owner. After much analysis and
research, I have decided to whole-hearted support the 405 Alberto Way project as it is currently proposed and I implore
you to do the same. Please remember that it is your job to listen to ALL residents unbiasedly and not let a small but
vocal group of "squeaky wheel NIBMYs" dissuade you from a balanced and legally sound decision that meets the overall
stated plans and objectives of the entire town/city.
The proposed project definitely
• complies with all the publicly stated town objectives and plans,
• more that adequately meets all zoning requirement s,
• replaces an eye-sore of a building with an attractive & sensitively designed modern yet traditional one,
• offers way more than the state-required traffic mitigation measures -including the CAT free shuttle service,
• will provide relief to a huge pent-up demand for true Class A office needs, and
• will provide lots of revenue to the town's general fund and thus even more public benefits
Please do not let this turn into yet another legal battle like the North-40 project that the town will ultimately lose after
spending & wasting $100,000's of residents' taxpayer monies that could otherwise be directed to public benefits for
which you will receive much praise instead of frustrated criticism from residents .
Please kindly confirm timely receipt of my urgent email herein.
Very truly yours,
Scott Eschen
Seacoast Partners LLC
408-482-7474 Office
866-2 02-3098 Fax