Loading...
401-409 Alberto Wy-Staff Report and Exhibits 3-14 PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER Associate 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: 12/13/2017 ITEM NO: 5 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2017 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. RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to conditions. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Mixed Use Commercial Zoning Designation: CH Restricted Commercial Highway Applicable Plans & Standards: Commercial Design Guidelines Parcel Size: 93,573 sq. ft. Surrounding Area: Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning North Residential Medium Density Residential R-M:5-12 West State Highway Ramps NA NA South Commercial Mixed Use Commercial CH:PD East Commercial Mixed Use Commercial CH:PD East Residential Medium Density Residential R-M:5-12 PAGE 2 OF 8 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001 DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\2017 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\12-13-17\AlbertoWay401-409 12.13.17 remand.docx 12/8/2017 9:50 AM CEQA: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for the project. FINDINGS:  As required by CEQA for certifying the Environmental Impact Report.  As required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code for granting a Conditional Use Permit.  That the proposed project is consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines.  As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of an existing structure. CONSIDERATIONS:  As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. BACKGROUND: On May 10, 2017, the Planning Commission denied Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 and Conditional Use Permit U-15-009 to construct a new two-story office building due to concerns regarding the size of the building and neighborhood compatibility. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council by the applicant on Ma y 19, 2017. The Architecture and Site and Conditional Use Permit applications were considered by the Town Council with public comment heard on September 19, 2017 and Council deliberations on October 3, 2017. The appeal was granted and the Town Council remanded the applications to the Planning Commission to consider additional modifications offered by the applicant (Exhibit 7). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The project site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. Access to the project site is provided on Alberto Way. The project vicinity contains a multi-family residential development located to the north of the PAGE 3 OF 8 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001 DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\2017 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\12-13-17\AlbertoWay401-409 12.13.17 remand.docx 12/8/2017 9:50 AM project site. Multi-family housing, office, and a hotel are located to the east (across Alberto Way). A hotel is located across Los Gatos – Saratoga Road to the south of the project site. The westerly rear of the site is bordered by a wooded strip of land and the on -ramp to northbound State Route 17. B. Project Summary The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Architecture and Site application to demolish the three existing office buildings (31,000 square feet total) and construct a new office building (74,260 square feet total) with two levels of underground parking. C. Zoning Compliance New office buildings approved or constructed after May 1, 2006, are permitted in the CH Zoning District subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed project complies with the height, and building coverage limitations. The proposed project also complies with setback requirements and all required p arking is being provided on-site. DISCUSSION: A. Town Council On September 19, 2017, and October 3, 2017, the Town Council considered the appeal of the Planning Commission’s May 10, 2017 denial. After holding a public hearing and asking questions of the applicant on September 19, 2017, the Town Council discussed the merits of the appeal on October 3, 2017. Possible project modifications discussed by Council included reduced square footage, recessed second floor windows, use of view glass, increased side setbacks, increased public space and landscaping on site, increased views of the hills, use of larger trees, LEED Gold certification, additional details on use of surface parking, and staff review of changes, along with additional information on the role of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the process. The minutes for the October 3, 2017 meeting, which include the Council’s deliberations and motion are provided in Exhibit 7. The Council adopted a resolution (Exhibit 8) rem anding the applications to the Planning Commission to reconsider the applications with modifications offered by the applicant. PAGE 4 OF 8 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001 DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\2017 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\12-13-17\AlbertoWay401-409 12.13.17 remand.docx 12/8/2017 9:50 AM B. Revised Project Design On November 7, 2017, the applicant resubmitted plans (Exhibit 1 4) and a letter of justification for a revised project (Exhibit 9), which illustrates the following modifications that have been made to the design of the building:  Reduced square footage: The total building floor area has been reduced from 83,000 square feet (March 2017 revision) to 74,260 square feet, to match the Environmentally Superior Alternative listed in the Draft EIR.  Reduced lot coverage: The building lot coverage has been reduced from 45.3 percent (42,400 square feet) (March 2017 revision) to 41 percent (38,392 square feet).  Recessed second floor windows: Windows are proposed to be recessed between one and three feet.  Use of view glass: View glass has been incorporated in the design. o Staff has prepared the following condition of approval and added it to the draft conditions in Exhibit 6 to memorialize the use of view glass: 7. VIEW GLASS: View glass shall be used in all second floor windows on the northern facing façade.  Increased side setbacks: The side setback, between the proposed building and the northern property line, has been increased from 26 feet to 55 feet.  LEED Gold certification: The applicant’s letter states that LEED Gold equivalency will be incorporated into the building plans. o Staff has prepared the following condition of approval and added it to the draft conditions in Exhibit 6 to require submittal of a LEED Gold Checklist: 8. LEED CHECKLIST: Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall submit a complete LEED for New Construction checklist showing the project is designed to meet a LEED Gold level. This current proposal has much the same character and many of the same features as the design reviewed by Planning Commission on May 10, 2017, and therefore the revised designs were not reviewed by the Town’s Architectural Consultant. The previous review by the Town’s Architectural Consultant, received March 17, 2017, has been included as Exhibit 11, as some of the recommendations still apply. C. Landscaping and Open Space On November 7, 2017, the applicant resubmitted plans (Exhibit 1 4) and a letter of justification for a revised project (Exhibit 9), which illustrates the following modifications that have been made to the landscaping and open space on the site:  Increased public space and landscaping on site: A new landscape area is now available along the north side of the building, currently described as a dog park in the plans, and PAGE 5 OF 8 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001 DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\2017 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\12-13-17\AlbertoWay401-409 12.13.17 remand.docx 12/8/2017 9:50 AM additional open space is provided at the southeastern corner of the site, where the surface parking lot has been reduced in size. o Staff has prepared the following condition of approval and added it to the draft conditions in Exhibit 6 to memorialize access to these spaces: 10. OPEN SPACE ACCESS: The open space shown in the development plans shall be made available for use by the public.  Increased views of the hills: The applicant’s project letter (Exhibit 9) describes increased views of the hills as a result of the increased north side setback.  Use of larger trees: The trees planted along the street have been increased from 36-inch to 48-inch box size. The applicant provided a description of the increased tree sizes in the supplemental information letter (Exhibit10). D. Parking and Traffic On November 7, 2017, the applicant resubmitted plans (Exhibit 1 4) and a letter of justification for a revised project (Exhibit 9), which illustrates the following modifications that have been made to the parking on site and traffic:  Additional details on use of surface parking: The parking has been reduced as a result of the reduced floor area to meet the reduced requirement from 332 spaces (March 2017 revision) to 298 spaces: 38 surface parking spaces and 260 underground parking spaces. The applicant describes in their response letter that they propose the surface parking would be available for use after business hours. o Staff has prepared the following condition of approval and added it to the draft conditions in Exhibit 6 to memorialize access to the surface parking lot: 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.  The applicant provided revised traffic counts in the supplemental information letter (Exhibit 10). The table provided shows that the current proposal reduces the total daily trips from 1,031 to 820 (when compared to the original project traffic impact anal ysis for approximately 92,000-square feet of building area), and reduces the AM Peak Hour trips from 181 to 151, and PM Peak Hour trips from 183 to 162. The Town’s traffic consultant has reviewed and confirmed the data provided by the applicant. Staff have prepared an updated Project information Sheet for the revised project (Exhibit 12). E. Caltrans When work is proposed within the Caltrans right-of-way an Encroachment Permit is required by Caltrans. The Encroachment Permit application that must be submitted to PAGE 6 OF 8 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001 DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\2017 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\12-13-17\AlbertoWay401-409 12.13.17 remand.docx 12/8/2017 9:50 AM Caltrans for their review requires submittal of environmental documentation and any conditions of approval, which are not available until after approval of the proposed project by the local agency. As a result the formal Caltrans review will occur after project approval by the Town. This work is part of the proposed project and would therefore not require additional environmental review. F. CEQA Determination The revised project has been reduced in scale by decreasing the proposed floor area to match the Environmentally Superior Alternative described in the Draft EIR. While an Environmentally Superior Alternative is a required part of an EIR, a project like this one which has no unavoidable significant environmental impacts as originally proposed, is not required to choose that Environmentally Superior Alternative. The revised project would implement all of the mitigation measures set forth in the Draft EIR and would not result in any new or increased significant environmental impacts when compared to the original project. Therefore, no further environmental review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act since all potential environmental impacts can still be mitigated by the measures listed in the Draft EIR and the revised project would not result in any new or increased significant environmental impacts when compared to the original project. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Exhibit 13 includes public comment received by 11:00 a.m., Friday December 8, 2017, including comments that were received before the revised plans were submitted. COORDINATION: The Community Development Department coordinated with the Par ks and Public Works Department and the Santa Clara County Fire Department in the review of the applications. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A. Conclusion In response to the Town Council discussion of the project’s size and neighborhood compatibility, the applicant has increased the side setback, reduced the square footage, and modified the site plan to make additional open space available. The modifications result in a building that is still in conformance with all of the Town’s objective standards, and now brought down to the size of the Environmentally Superior Alternative described in the Draft EIR. PAGE 7 OF 8 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001 DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\2017 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\12-13-17\AlbertoWay401-409 12.13.17 remand.docx 12/8/2017 9:50 AM B. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions to approve the Architecture and Site and Conditional Use Permit applications : 1. Adopt the CEQA Findings of Fact (Exhibit 5); 2. Certify the Final EIR and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 2); 3. Make the required findings as required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code for granting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (Exhibit 4) (Note: if the application is approved the findings for denial will be removed); 4. Make the required finding that the project is in compliance with the Commercial Design Guidelines (Exhibit 4); 5. Make the findings required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of an existing structure (Exhibit 4); 6. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 4); and 7. Approve Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 and Architecture & Site Application S-15-056 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 6, and the plans in Exhibit 14. C. Alternatives Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or 2. Approve the applications with additional and/or modified conditions; or 3. Deny the applications and make the required findings for denial (Exhibit 4) (Note: if the applications are denied the provided findings for approval, Exhibit 4, would need to be revised. EXHIBITS: Previously received under separate cover: 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report 2. Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated June 29, 2016 Received with this Staff Report: 3. Location Map 4. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages) PAGE 8 OF 8 SUBJECT: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY/S-15-056, U-15-009, AND EIR-16-001 DECEMBER 8, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\2017 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\12-13-17\AlbertoWay401-409 12.13.17 remand.docx 12/8/2017 9:50 AM 5. Required CEQA Findings of Fact (24 pages) 6. Recommended Conditions of Approval (11 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 Distribution: Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions, LLC, 535 Middlefield Road, Ste. 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 401 -409 Alberto Way EXHIBIT 3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION -December 13, 2017 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS: 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 FINDINGS Required finding for CEQA: • An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed development. The Planning Commission must certify the EIR, make findings of fact, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Required findings for a Conditional Use Permit: • As required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code for granting a Conditional Use Permit: The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a conditional use permit when specifically authorized by the provisions of the Town Code if it finds that: (1) The proposed use would be considered desirable in that the office buildings would replace the existing office buildings on-site and provide necessary uses and services for the community; and (2) The proposed application will continue to provide office uses in one of the few small mixed-use commercial areas of Town and the zone allows office; and (3) The existing and proposed office use are not detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare; and (4) The proposed use is in harmony with the General Plan and Town Code. Commercial Design Guidelines: • The proposed buildings are consistent with applicable provisions of the Commercial Design Guidelines. EXHIBIT 4 Required finding for the demolition of an existing structure: • As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of an existing structure: 1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the demolition does not include any residential buildings. 2. The existin g structures have no architectural or h istorical significance. 3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structures as they exist. 4. The economic utility of the structures are diminished because of age. CONSIDERATIONS Required considerations in r·eview of Architecture & Site applications: • As required by Section 29 .20 .150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project. N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2017\Afberto 401-409_remand .doc CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT of the PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS for the 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROJECT August 10, 2016 1 EXIIlBIT 5 I. Introduction As approved by the Planning Commission on August 10, 2016, the 401-409 Alberto Way development ("the project") will involve the development of three two-story office buildings . Construction is anticipated to take place over a period of fourteen months. The To\\n of Los Gatos ("Town"), as lead agency, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the project in April 2016 (State Clearinghouse No. 2015122041)1 . This document was circulated for public review for forty-five (45) days between April 29, 2016 and June 13, 2016, and public comment was received. The Town of Los Gatos prepared responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and published both comments and responses to comments in the June 29, 2016, Final EIR, which was posted on the Town's website on August 5, 2016. These findings have been prepared in accordance '\\ith the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and its implementing guidelines ("CEQA Guidelines") (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.). II. Project Description The project is the redevelopment of the project site \Vith demolition of existing site improvements and the development of two new, steel frame, two-story buildings totaling 92,800 square feet over a two-level, below-grade parking garage. Site improvements will include an onsite employee amenity area, visitor parking, new landscaping, and a variety of energy efficient and/ or sustainable interior and exterior building elements. The two new buildings are referred to as Building A and Building B. Building A will have a total building area of 47,800 square feet and Building B will have a total building area of 45,000 square feet, for a total of 92,800 square feet . As the three existing two-story buildings on the project site total approximately 31,000 square feet of building area, the project will result in an increase of approximately 61,800 square feet of commercial square footage on the project site. Although there are no future tenants for the new buildings identified at the time of preparation of this EIR, the buildings are anticipated to house a variety of professional office uses similar to use of the existing buildings on the site. The project will install 390 vehicle parking spaces on the site, compliant with the Town's Municipal Code. The majority of the parking spaces, 383, will be located in the below-grade, 156,200 square- 1 See Cal. Code Regs ., Title 14, Section 15367 for a definition of "lead agency." 2 foot parking facility . Five standard parking spaces, one accessible parking space, and one van accessible parking space will be provided at grade. The project will include 20 short-term bicycle parking spaces and 20 long-term bicycle parking spaces. The land coverage will be 49 .6 percent of the site and the maximum height will be 35 feet, both of which are consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designation for the site which allows up to 50 percent land coverage and a 35-foot height limit. While the front entry to each of the proposed new conunercial buildings includes a tower above the main entrance which exceeds the otherwise maximum 35-foot roof level, the Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code 29.10.090 allows exceptions to height restrictions for towers, spires, and other architectural features to exceed maximum building height provided that these areas are inaccessible to human activity or storage. The project's tower areas would be closed off such that these areas would not be accessible, habitable, or visible from the interior of the building. Therefore, the tower areas would be in compliance with Municipal Code 29.10.090. Site development will require demolition of all existing site improvements. The majority of the project site will be excavated to an estimated depth of approximately 20 feet to accommodate the subterranean parking garage. The project site has a Mixed-Use Commercial General Plan land use designation which permits a mixture of retail, office, and residential uses in a mixed-use setting. Projects developed under this designation are intended to maintain the small-town, residential scale and natural environments of adjacent residential neighborhoods, as well as provide prime orientation to arterial street frontages and proper transitions and buffers to adjacent residential properties. The project site is zoned CH-Restricted Commercial Highway. Allowable uses include retailing, personal service businesses, service businesses necessary for the conduct of households, office uses, and limited manufacturing uses. The proposed project is for the construction of office buildings which consistent with the Los Gatos Zoning Code's allowable uses. As the project will be consistent with the intent of the General Plan land use designation of Mixed- Use Commercial for the site and with the CH -Restricted Commercial Highway zoning, no amendment to the General Plan or Zoning Code will be required to approve the project. A. Changes to the DEIR Changes were made to the Draft EIR after the public review period for the Draft EIR, reflected in the Final EIR, and included in the project as approved by the Planning Commission on August 10, 2016. The modifications to the Draft EIR were primarily grammatical and spelling corrections. Some substantive text additions and/or clarifications were added to the Aesthetics, Air Quality, and Traffic section; however, these modifications did not alter the conclusion that the project will result 3 in less-than-significant impacts associated with these environmental issues. Section 3.0, Changes to the Draft EIR, in the Final EIR presents a full summary of all changes made to the Draft EIR. B. Location and Current Use The project site is an approximately 2.15-acre parcel located at 401 -409 Alberto Way on the northwest comer of Los Gatos -Saratoga Road and Alberto Way in the Town of Los Gatos in Santa Clara County (Assessor's Parcel No. 529-23-018). Alberto Way is a t\\'o-lane dead-end street that parallels State Route 17 and also setves as the easternmost boundary of the project site. The westerly rear of the site is bordered by a wooded strip of land and the on-ramp to northbound State Route 17. Access to the project site is provided via three driveways on Alberto Way. The project site is developed with three, two-story wood frame multi-tenant office buildings \\ith on- grade parking and daylighted basement areas beneath the buildings. The existing buildings on the site were constructed in the mid-l 960s and comprise approximately 31,000 square feet . Existing buildings on the site are 24 to 35 feet in height. Parking is currently provided v~ith paved surface lots . The site is relatively level and areas oflandscaping are located throughout the site . C. Purpose and Objectives CEQA Guidelines section 15124 requires that the "Project Description" portion of a Draft EIR set forth "[a] statement of the objectives sought by the project." The Draft EIR for the project identified the following "project objectives." • Redevelop the site by removing the now obsolete, aging structures and replacing them with new, two-story Class A steel office buildings utilizing energy efficient, recycled and sustainable building materials that meet the standards of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). • Incorporate high-quality building architecture with design features that both blend '"ith and compliment the aesthetics, scale, architecture, and character of the surrounding land uses. • Provide a building type that satisfies the needs, desires, and market demand for high-tech office users in Class A office space (e.g. larger floor plates, operationally sustainable/functional buildings, energy efficient systems, and onsite employee amenities). • Provide for a redeveloped site that fully complies with all applicable General Plan Goals and Policies, as well as applicable standards and guidelines established by the Municipal Code. • Create an interactive pedestrian oriented space that is attractive to future employees, tenants, and visitors to the site. 4 • Retain and augment additional planting to the grove of trees along Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and the freeway on-ramp. • Through redevelopment of the site, create an opportunity for enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the existing Town network. • Utilize building setbacks, landscaping and architectural treatments (materials, colors, and surfaces) to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. III. Environmental Review Process and Project Approval The Town distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a 30-day comment period from April 29, 2016 to June 13, 2016 (see Draft EIR, Appendix A) thereby notifying responsible agencies, trustee agencies, adjacent local agencies, transportation planning agencies, the public, and other interested parties of the scoping period and giving them the opportunity to transmit their concerns and comments on the scope and content of the Draft EIR. On April 29, 2016, the Town published the Draft EIR for the project, commencing a forty-five (45) day public review period that ended on June 13 , 2016. On August 5, 2016, the Town issued the proposed Final EIR for consideration by the Town's Planning Commission. On August IO, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the project. After hearing public testimony and deliberating, the Commission approved the project. l'V. Record of Proceedings In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21167 .6, subdivision (e), the record of proceedings for the Town of Los Gatos' decision on the project includes the following documents: • The April 2016 Draft EIR and its appendices; • The June 2016 Final EIR and its appendices; • All documents cited or referenced in the Draft and Final EIRs; • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; • All findings and resolutions adopted by the Town of Los Gatos in connection with the project and all documents cited or referred to therein; 5 • All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the TO\vn of Los Gatos relevant to the Town's compliance with the requirements ofCEQA and the Town's action on the project; • All documents submitted to the Town by the applicant, by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the project, up through the close of the final public hearing on project before the Planning Commission held on August 10, 2016; • Any minutes and/ or verbatim transcripts of public meetings and public hearings held by the TO\vn of Los Gatos in connection with the project; • Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the Town of Los Gatos at such public meetings and public hearings; • Matters of common knowledge to the Town of Los Gatos, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations ; • T mvn of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan; • Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report; • Town of Los Gatos General Plan Update Background Report; • Los Gatos Town Codes; • Los Gatos Sustainability Plan; • Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and, • Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167 .6, subdivision (e). The documents constituting the record of proceedings are available for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public: from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Los Gatos Community Development Department at 110 East Main Street; from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Town Clerk office at llO East Main Street; and during regular business hours, at the Town Library at 100 Villa A venue. The custodian of these documents is the Community Development Department. This information is provided in compliance ~ith Public Resources Code section 21081.6 . The Town's decision makers have relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching their decisions on the Project even if not every document was formally presented to the decision makers. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the project files fall into one of two 6 categories . Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the Town of Los Gatos was aware in approving the project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.) Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to the Town of Los Gatos staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the Planning Commission as final decision makers . For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the Town's decisions relating to approval of the project. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6, subd. (e)(lO); Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866; StanislausAudubon Society, Inc. v. CountyofStanislaus(l995) 33Cal.App.4th144, 153, 155.) V. Findings Required Under CEQA Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.)" The same statute provides that the procedures required · by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to provide that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. 1bis mandate to adopt findings is found in Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a). Under these provisions, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The second permissible finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that such changes have been adopted by, or can and should be adopted by, such other agency. The third potential conclusion is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091). "[F)easible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15364) 7 Here, as set forth in Table A, CEQA Findings, the Planning Commission has adopted the first permissible finding \\ith respect to all significant effects identified in the EIR, concluding that all such effects can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. The Planning Commission therefore has no need to consider the feasibility of any project alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code,§ 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 (Laurel Hills); see also Kings County Fann Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California ( 1988) 4 7 Cal.3d 3 7 6, 400-403.) Under CEQA, where the significant impacts of a project cannot be avoided or substantially lessened, either by mitigation measures or a project alternative , a public agency , after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a "statement of overriding considerations" setting forth the specific reasons that the agency found the project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines, § 15093; Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b)). Here, however, as noted above, the Town of Los Gatos has identified and adopted feasible mitigation measures that mitigate all significant environmental impacts of the project to less-than-significant levels. Thus, just as the Town is not required to address the feasibility of alternatives! the Town is also not required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project. The Town recognizes the Final EIR incorporates information obtained and produced after the Draft EIR was completed, and that the Final EIR contains additions, clarifications, and modifications. The Town has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of this information, and finds that the Final EIR does not add significant new information to the Draft EIR that will require recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. The new information added to the EIR does not in\·olve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed that the project sponsor declines to adopt and that will clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project. No information indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR. Thus, recirculation of the EIR is not required. The Town finds that the changes and modifications made to the EIR after the Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment do not individually or collectively constitute significant new information as described in Public Resources Code section 21092.1 or the CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Subdivision (a) of Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires lead agencies to "adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the 8 environment." For the project, the Town satisfied this obligation by preparing a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which is included as Section 4 in the Final EIR. The MMRP provides a list of all adopted project mitigation measures, identifies the parties responsible for implementing such measures, and identifies the timing for implementation and monitoring of each measure. The MMRP is being approved concurrently with the adoption of these Findings of Fact. VII. Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures The Draft EIR identified a number of potentially significant environmental effects (or impacts) caused or contributed to by the project. All of these effects can be mitigated to less than significant levels through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, all of which Town staff has determined remain necessary, in unchanged form, for the project as approved. The project thus will not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts . The Town of Los Gatos' findings with respect to the project's significant and potentially significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth in the table attached to these findings (Table A to CEQA Findings). The findings set forth in the table are hereby incorporated herein by reference. This table does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Draft and Final EIRs. Instead, the table provides a summary description of each impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR or Final EIR and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos, and states the Town's findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Draft EIR and Final EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussions and analyses in those documents supporting the Final EIR's determinations regarding mitigation measures and the project's impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the Town of Los Gatos ratifies, adopts, and incoiporates into these findings the analyses and explanations in the Draft EIR and Final EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of those documents relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings. VIII. References EMC Planning Group. Final EIR 401-409 Alberto Way. June 2016. EMC Planning Group. Draft EIR 401-409 Alberto Way. April 2016. Architectural Technologies. A Planning Application for 401-409 Alberto Way. February 2016. 9 Table A. Table of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and CEQA F indings Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Findings of Fact ~~~~.~~~,...~--~=--~""' ... ~~--~~-~~~=--~~---=~--=---= ....... ~ ......... =~~~=-.... ~ .... .-.='"""--=----~--.... ~--~~ .... ~==---=~--~~--~----~~--~~-4 Air Quality .... "S --·-· • __..... ..... , ........ .-::z.~.·~--~~--~---~--~ ... ,...-~-~=--~ .... -=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--~---""4 Inconsistency with Clean Air Plan (S) AQ-1. Final plans for the proposed building.-; on the site shall be amended to include a requirement for low NOx beating systems to be installed in new buildings on the site. AQ-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 rt.-stricted to electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles, and at least one handicapped space shall be provided with acce ss to a charging station. LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 will reduce this impatt to a less- than-significant level. Pursuant to Pub1i c Resources Code Section 21081 (a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 1509 I (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of Los Gatos, therefi.)re, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the significant environmental cffo<..1s as identified in the EIR. Explanation: The pn~jcct's site plan does not folly address several of the control measure requirements of the 2010 Clean /\ir Plan. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 require low NOx heating systems and installation of eJcctric charging stations, which wi11 implement the control measures lacking iu the projctt's site plan and will eliminate conflicts with the 2010 Clean Air Plan. ~ ........._.___ _1-.,. _______ .L--------···-·---- Environmental Mitigation Measure Significance Findings of Fact Impact After (Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation) (DEIR pp. 3-35 and 3-36) Construction Dust AQ-3 . The project contractor shall LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure Adjacent to Sensitive implement basic dust control measures at AQ-3 will reduce this impact to a less-than- Receptors (S) all on-site and off-site locations where significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code grading or excavation takes place. The Section 2108l(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section project contractor shall implement 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that additional dust control measures at all on-this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of site and off-site locations where grading or Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or excavation takes place within 200 feet of alterations have been required in, or incorporated residential properties. into, the project that avoid the significant Basic dust control measures: environmental effects as identified in the EIR. a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking Explanation: Construction of the project will take areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded place adjacent to existing residences to the project areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be site and will result in dust emissions (particulate watered two times per day; matter) that could affect residents in this area. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 provides controls to limit sand, or other loose material off-site shall dust from construction from being transported off- be covered; site via wind erosion of unpaved surfaces or through soils tracked-out onto paved roads where particulate c. All visible mud or dirt track-out matter could enter the air through the motion of onto adjacent public roads shall be passing cars and trucks. Th.us, AQ-3 will reduce removed using wet power vacuum street impacts related to construction dust to a less-than- Environmental Mitigation Measure Significance Findings of Fact Impact After (Sigo ificancc Before Mitigation Mitigation) ~-.---~-~-...=~~ ~-~ .... -=-~ ..... ---r.< .. ~---~~.-.-.-.a-_.........~-..... _._-:. ~""'~~·.-.::..-:.--.'1.2>• .._...= .. ~~~~ ... ~;...i__..~..s_.1E!-.,,._-...;.-....= .. sweepers at le<L<;t once per day. The use of significant level. dry power sweeping is prohibited; (DElR, pp. 3-37-3-38.) d. All vehide speeds on unpaved road<; shall be limited to 15 mph; c. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed a'> soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders arc used; and f. The projec't contnwtor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" responsible for responding to any locaJ complaints regarding dust <.:omp1aints . The project contrac'tor will post a publicly visible sign with a contact telephone number for the disturbance coordinator. The di~1urbance coordinator shall respond and take corre(.tion action for any complaint received with 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with Environmental Mitigation Measure Significance Findings of Fact Impact After (Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation) applicable regulations. g. All excavation, grading, and/ or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wi nd 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 1. Unpaved roads shall be treated with a three to six inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. Biological Resources Disturbance of Nesting BI0-1. If noise generation, ground LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure Birds (PS) disturbance, vegetation removal, or other BI0-1 will reduce this impact to a less-than- construction activities begin during the significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code nesting bird season (February 1 to August Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 31 ), or if construction activities are 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that suspended for at least two weeks and this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of recommence during the nesting bird Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or Environmental Mitigation M.casurc Significance Findings of Fact Jmpact After (SignHicance Before Mitigation Mitigation) :iTt~rat~~h;~~~ rc~~7j;-~~~t~'d"'-·-~t"'ll!:;" ... ~~~~~···= ~-......... -~-.-.:a.--=::.-...-...~-...... ~--... ~~----.---.~-~.::r.~ ~--·--.-=--.:.w.~--'\A'i: ... ~ season, then the project. developer shall retain a qualified bioJogist to condm.t a into, the projec.t that avoid the sib'llificaut pre-construction survey for nesting hirds. c.nvironmcntal effects as identified in the ElR. The survey shall be performed within Explanation: Construction activities pcrt'brmcd suitable nesting habitat areas on and during nesting bird season could result in the dircc.1. adjacent to the site to <.'nsure that no active loss of nest.s, including eggs and young, or the nest') would be di!lturbed during prqjec.t abandonment of an active nest. Mitigation Measure implementation. This survey shall be m 0-1 provides measures to reduce direct and conduc.tcd no more than two weeks prior indirec.t disturbance of active bird nests during to the initiation of construction of the project, thus reducing impacts to disturbance/ construction activities. /\ nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. report documenting survey result-; and (DEJR, p . 3-57.) plan for attive 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 construct.ion activities. If no active bird nests are dctec..1cd during the survey, then project: activities can proceed as scheduled. However, if an active bird nest of a native species is Environmental Mitigation Measure Significance Findings of Fact Impact After (Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation) detected during the suivey, 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. Cultural Resources "Environmental Mitigation Measure Significance Findings of Pact Impact After (Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation) -·QOl'~~-----=-=-,;::-,.-~_,,..._.,e-..=-----~-·-~~~..-...~ ......... ~~~=~ --~~-~ ....... Disturbance of CU-1 . Prior to tht~ issuance of a grnding LTS Findings: Jmplcmcntation of Mitigation Measure Archaeological permit, the projec.1's grading plan shall CR-I will reduce this impact to a less-than- Resources (PS) indicate the requirement for a qualified significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code archaeologist to be present at all times Sect.ion 2108l(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section during grading and excavation activities I 5091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby dire(..1.s that on the project site. If archaeological this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of resources arc uucovercd, work will not Los C ratos, therefore, finds that changes or continue until the resources have been alterations have been required in, or incorporated removed and/ or recorded. The Planning into, the project that avoid the significant Division of the Community Development environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Department shall be responsible for Explanation: Because unknown significant buried ensuring the implementation of these archaeological 1 resources could be located on the mitigation measures. Costs shall be the projctt site, and the project involves deep responsibility of the dcvcloper(s). excavations, the potential exists for disturbance of these resources during grading or excavation activities. Mitigation Measure CR-1 will require monitoring by a qualified archcologist during grading and excavation and in the event of a discovery of an archeologi<.'al resource, work is to be halted until the resource(s) have been removed and/ or recovered. Thus, the potentially significant impac.1 to archaeological resources will he reduced to ·----~-· ·-- Environmental Mitigation Measure Significance Findings of Fact Impact After (Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation) a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, pp. 3-72-3-73.) Disturbance of Human CR-2. If human remains are found during LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure Remains (PS) construction activities, no further CR-2 will reduce this impact to a less-than- excavation or disturbance of the site or significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code any nearby area reasonably suspected to Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section overlie adjacent human remains shall 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that occur until the archeological monitor and this mitigation measure be adopted. The Town of the coroner of Santa Clara County are Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or contacted. If it is determined that the alterations have been required in, or incorporated remains are Native American, the coroner into, the project that avoid the significant shall contact the Native American environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Heritage Commission within 24 hours. Explanation: The project site is not known to The Native American Heritage contain human remains, but excavation during Commission shall identify the person or construction of project improvements could result in persons it believes to be the most likely disturbance of unknown human remains. Mitigation descendent (MLD) from the deceased Measure CR-2 requires that excavation or Native American . The MLD may then disturbance of the site be halted if human remains make recommendations to the landowner are found during construction activities until a or the person responsible for the qualified archaeological monitor and coroner are excavation work, for means of treating or contacted. Mitigation Measure CR-2 also includes disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the specific requirements if the remains are determined Environmental Mitigation Measure Significance Findings of Fact Impact After (Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation) .~..-~-~-~.-=:-..z-~=-:----;r. ~ ........ ~.-~~·~J~~..ca.;:"=""l l''f"l"1P', 'Jl.~~,.--=~--;;.'9 ~_,,--~::-~.-·~---.·~~-~...,.,.....-1".= ....... ~~=----~==;:o:...-a:.: ___ ._......,;i19 human remains and associated grave to be Native American including contat.ting the goods as provided in Public Resources Native American Heritage Commission. Thus, Code section 5097.98. The landowner or implementation Mitigation Measure CR-2 will his authorized representative shaJl rebury reduce the potential impacts to human remains to a the Native American human remains and less-than-significant level. a'isodated grave goods with appropriate (DEIR, pp. 3-73-3-74.) dignity on the property in a location not subject to further cfo;t:urbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours a1lcr being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fa.its to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorizt~d representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native Amt..'Tican Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acct.t>tablc to the landowner. The Planning DivL'iion of the Community Development Dcpartmrnt shall be -= -- Environmental Mitigation Measure Significance Findings of Fact Impart After {Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation) responsible for ensuring the implementation of these mitigation measures. Costs shall be the responsibility of the developer{s) Geology and Soils Susceptibility to GE0-1. Prior to the approval of building LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure Seismic Ground permits for the project site, the applicant GEO-I will reduce this impact to a less-than- Shaking and shall be responsible for demonstrating to significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Liquefaction {PS) the approval of the Building Official that Section 21081{a) and CEQA Guidelines Section proposed design plans are in conformance 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that with all current California Building Ccxie this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of standards and that all design measures and Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or site preparation recommendations as alterations have been required in, or incorporated suggested in the project's geotechnical into, the project that avoid the significant exploration report prepared by ENGEO environmental effects as identified in the EIR. {2015) have been incorporated into the Explanation: Ground shaking from earthquakes project's final design. could be very strong within the region and thus at the project site . The project site is located in an area identified in the General Plan EIR and the Seismic Hazards Zone Map as a seismically-induced liquefaction zone; thus, sufficiently strong seismic Environmental Mitigation Mea.~urc Significance Findings of Fact Impact After (Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation) -...~~~-..=. ·-= ~-.."'T'l-=-.. ~~-..--~~=---s---:u a ~.~..z..a~-.-..~<:::':--..~~.._-u.,,....~-''. '" . . • shaking could result in liquefaction . Building codes and engineering standards have been developed to address the threes to which buildings arc su~jectcd during earthquakes, and buildings constructed in accordance with these codes and standards should withstand earthquakes without severe damage or significant numbers of injuries or deaths. Mitigation Measure GE0-1 requires the applicant to demonstrative compliance with current California Building Code Standards in addition to all recommendations fmm the geotcchnical report prepared for the prqjcct, thus, reducing potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, pp. 3-80-3-81.) --·-·-·----·--·---.. ----------------·----···-·- Soil lnstability due to GEO-I. Prior to the approval of building LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure Deep Excavations (PS) permits for the project site, the applicant GEO-I will reduce this impact to a less-than- shall be responsible for demonstrating to significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code the approval of the Huilding Oilicial that Section 2"1081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section proposed design plans arc in conformance 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby dire{.1S that with all current California Building Code this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of standard.:; and that all design measures and 1 Los Clatos, therefore, finds that changes or ____________ ~~c preparation recommendations as L alterations have been required in, or incorporated __ Environmental Mitigation Measure Significance Findings of Fact Impact After (Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation) suggested in the project's geotechnical into, the project that avoid the significant exploration report prepared by ENGEO environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (2015) have been incorporated into the Explanation: The project site is not located within, project's final design. or near, a landslide hazard area, nor areas of other known soil instability. However, due to the large amount of excavation for the project there is the potential for soil instability. Mitigation Measure GE0-1 requires implementation of the project's geotechnical report recommendations including adequate drainage for retaining walls, backfill specifications for wet sites, temporary shoring and dewatering measures, etc. Implementation of these measures during the construction and design process will reduce potential impacts related to soil instability to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, pp. 3-80-3-81.) Susceptibility to GE0-1. Prior to the approval of building LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure Expansive Soils (S) permits for the project site, the applicant GE0-1 will reduce this impact to a less-than- shall be responsible for demonstrating to significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code the approval of the Building Official that Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section proposed design plans are in confonnance 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that with all current California Building Code this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of Environmental Impact (Significance Before Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation Finding.4i of Fact ~~~ ·-·-~ ·---~~,~~~·,-. 1-'-~,----"'=--~··· ~-~~ "--standards and that all design measures and Los Gatos, therefore, find-; that changes or site preparation recommendations as alterations have been required in, or incorp.oratcd suggested in the projcc.1's gcotechnical into, the pn~ject that avoid the significant exploration report prepared by EN GEO . environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (2015) have been incorporated into the pn~ject's final design. Explanation: Testing preformed during the pn~jcct's geotcchnical explomtion indicated a moderate expansive potential of project site soil<>. Mitigation Measure GE0-1 requires implementation of the projec..t's geotedmical report recommendations induding adequate drainage for retaining walls, backfill specifications for wet sites, temporary shoring and dewatcring measures, etc. Implementation of these measures during the construction and design process of the pn~jecl reduces potential impacts rdatcd to expansive soils to a less-than-significant lcvcL (DEIR, pp. 3-80-3-81-) ~~---~---~~~--·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--.l-~~~~~~~~L-~~~~_:_~~~ Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1--·-·-•·--·-\. ···~----'-r"="""""'"'~~---~~J..-.~·--··-= .. -.-;,.. -.~ -·-----·- Potential to Release Tfazardous Materials into the Environment HAZ-1.Prior to any demolition activities on the projcc..t site, an asbestos and lcad- bascd paint survey shall he performed to LTS Findings: Implementation ofMitigation Measure 1 IAZ-1 will reduce this impac.1 to a less-than- significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code b:: _ ' • -· ._.,.,............,,... __ ---.-~~•• -...l~r~.1•=.:: .. 11s.:~·~--...~--w.·-..:--.•.-..-. ._ .... I.._ • .._..,......:.&A~W ----!'-.-..... =™r~-.I Environmental Mitigation Measure Significance Findings of Fact Impact After · (Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation) (PS) determine if any additional waste removal Section 2108l(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section activities would be required. The selected 15091 (a), the Town of Los Gatos hereby directs that project contractor shall implement all site this Mitigation Measure be adopted. The Town of specific measures and recommendations Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or identified within the site's asbestos and alterations have been required in, or incorporated lead-based survey. Compliance with the into, the project that avoid the significant asbestos and lead-based paint survey environmental effects as identified in the EIR. during site demolition activities shall be Explanation: The existing office buildings may demonstrated to the satisfaction of the contain asbestos and/ or lead-based paint which Town Engineer. could be released into the environment during demolition. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires an . asbestos and lead-based paint survey to be completed prior to any demolition activities and, if present, implementation of recommendations contained therein, which will reduce potential impacts related to the release of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 3-105.) Traffic and Transportation Potential to Increase T-3 Off-site improvement plans shall LTS Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measure T- Hazards due to Design show that parking on southbound Alberto 3 will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant Environmental Impact (Significance Befhrc Mitigation) Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation .Findings of Pact ~~---·-··-~~-~~·~P.-~ · ~r~~=-""n·-~---~~~~~~-~~==~~--~=~·=-~ Features Based on Site Way between the two project driveways level. Pursuant tu Public Resources Code Section A ccess and Site shall be prohihited to ensure sight distance 2108 l(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a), Distance (S) is not obscured. the Town of Los (I atos hereby directs that this Mitigation Measure be adopted . The Town of Los Gatos, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the projc(t that avoid the significant environmental eftccts as identified jn the EIR. Explanation: Parked vehicles block drivers' views at the south exit-only driveway, thereby obstruc.ting visibility of southbound vehicles on Alberto Way, and block drivers' views of northbound vehicles at the north full-access driveway. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3 wiH prohibit parking between the two proj el.t driveways thereby reducing potential ha:t.ards related to blocked drivers' visibility to a less-than-si!.,111ificant level. ·-·· ...... J----·--------··--· ----·-···-----·-···---.L..··-·------·-··--·'--·----·-···-----··-------..-· ·····--·--····· Notes: 1.:rs -Le ss-Than-Significant PS ==-Potent ially SigniJkant S ~: Significant -·--· ····-·-·----·---. -····· ... --------··--··-----.----·· . ·-·----------------------------------------------- Source: E MC P lanning Group Inc. 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION – December 13, 2017 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 ope ration 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 shall be used in all second floor windows on the northern facing façade 8. LEED CERTIFICATION: Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall submit a complete LEED for New Construction checklist showing the project is designed to meet a LEED Gold level. 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 6 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. 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 sit e. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties. 17. 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. 18. LANDSCAPING: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy all landscaped must be complete. 19. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. Th e 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. 23. 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 nesting habitat areas on and adjacent to the site to ensure that no active nest s 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 procee d 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. 24. 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). 25. 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 deter mined 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 disturban ce 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 landowne r or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the 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). 26. 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 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. Building Division 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, size 24” x 36” minimum, 30” x 42” maximum. 36. BUILDING & SUITE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new building addresses to the Building Division prior to submitting for the building permit application process. 37. SOILS REPORT: A soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics. 38. 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. 39. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exc eed 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 regulation s. 40. 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 41. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue-lined (sticky-backed) onto a sheet of the plans. 42. 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 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. 43. FIRE ZONE: This project will require Class A Roof Assemblies. 44. 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 45. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sh eet (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. 46. 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. 47. 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. 48. 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, 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. 49. 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. 50. 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. 51. 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 52. 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 th e 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 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. 53. 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 To wn Engineer. 54. 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 mu st be submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to releasing any permit. 55. 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. 56. 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. 57. 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 sha ll 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. 58. 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 s afe 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 four (4) weeks. 59. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job site at all times during construction. 60. 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. 61. 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. 62. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance of any permits. 63. 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. 64. 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. 65. 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). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street, is needed for grading within the building footprint. 66. 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. 67. 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. 68. 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. 69. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to the issuance of a grading permit/building permit. 70. 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 th e following items: a. Retaining wall: top of wall elevations and locations. b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes. 71. 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 condit ions 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. 72. 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. 73. 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. 74. 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. 75. 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 Professions Code. 76. 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. 77. 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. 78. 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. 79. 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. 80. 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. 81. 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 by PG&E, shall be clearly delineated on the plans. 82. WATER DESIGN: Water plans prepared by San Jose Water Company must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any permit. 83. WATER METER: The existing water meters, currently located within the Alberto Way right - 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. 84. 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 frontage 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 bike lane between the two travel lanes on southbound Alberto Way. vi. Install a 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 Engine er. 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. 85. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MEASURES: Projects which propose work within the Town’s right-of-way, including but not limited to pavement restoration, street widening, 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. 86. 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. 87. 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 directed by the Town. 88. 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. 89. 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. 90. 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. 91. 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 utilit y 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 approve or imply approval for final alignment or design of these facilities. 92. 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. 93. 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. 94. 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. 95. 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 shal l be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. 96. CALTRANS APPROVAL: The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining design approval(s) and construction encroachment permit(s) from Caltra ns for any improvements within the Caltrans right-of-way. 97. 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. 98. 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 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 th e 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. 99. 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. 100. 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. 101. 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. 102. 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. 103. 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 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. 104. TRAFFIC STUDY: Any development of land use that generates greater traffic impacts than those assumed in the traffic study report may require an updated traffic study in accordance with the Town’s traffic impact policy. 105. 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 $526,768.00. 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. 106. 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. 107. 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. 108. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN: A traffic control plan is required and mu st 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. 109. 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). 110. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL: All construction traffic and related vehicular routes, traffic control plan, and applicable pedestrian or traffic detour pl ans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to beginning of any work. 111. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION: Advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding parking restriction, lane closure or road closure, with specification of dates and hours of operation. 112. 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 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. 113. 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 a uthorize, 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. 114. 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. 115. 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, site security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, materials storage area(s), construction trailer(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse location(s). Please refer to the Town’s Construction Management Plan Guidelines document for additional information. 116. 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. 117. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised b y 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, or at a location specified by the Town. 118. 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 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. 119. 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. 120. 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. 121. 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. 122. 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. 123. 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 proj ects 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 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 perfo rmed 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 throughout t he recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and regulations. 124. 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 swept 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. 125. 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. 126. 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. 127. 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. 128. 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. 129. 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 t o the detriment of an adjacent, downstream or down slope property. 130. 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. 131. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN NOTES: The following note shall be added to the storm water management plan: “The biotreatment soil mix used in all stormwate r 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.” 132. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CERTIFICATION: Certification from the biotreatment soils provider is required and shall be given to Engineering Division Inspection staff a 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. 133. 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 installed 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 reporting 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 Works Department, prior to the release of any occupancy permits. 134. 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. 135. 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. 136. 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. 137. 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. 138. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered. N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2017\Alberto 401-409_remand.doc TOWN OF LOS GATOS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE : 11/07 /2017 ITEM NO: 1 MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 3, 2017 The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Marice Sayoc, Vice Mayor Rob Rennie, Council Member Marcia Jensen, Council Member Steve Leonardis, Council Member Barbara Spector. Absent: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Hana Wright led the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was invited to participate. COUNCIL/TOWN MANAGER REPORTS Council Matters Council Member Steve Leonardis had nothing to report. Council Member Marcia Jensen met with several members of the community and attended the Council Policy Committee meeting. Mayor Marico Sayoc attended Safe Routes to School meeting, Silicon Valley Association of Realtors meeting, Rolling Hills Neighborhood meeting, Youth Park Day honoring six youth that will be leading the holiday parade . Vice Mayor Rob Rennie attended Ad Hoc Parking Committee, VTA Board Workshop, Joint VTA/BART Board meeting, VTA SR-85 Policy Advisory Board, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Board meeting, Cities Association meeting, Youth Park Day, and Eat, Drink Los Gatos Event. Council Member Barbara Spector attended Ad Hoc Parking and Infrastructure Committee meeting and met with members of the business community. Manager Matters Announced recruitment for Adult Commissioners has begun and the deadline to apply is Friday, October 27, 5:00 p.m. 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 • 408-354-6832 www .losgatosca .gov EXHIBIT . 7 PAGE 2 OF 5 SUBJECT: MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) 1. Approve Closed Session Meeting minutes of September 19, 2017 2. Approve Council Meeting minutes of September 19, 2017. 3. Authorize the Town Manager to enter into a third amendment to the agreement with Granlcus, Inc. for the Granicus Service Agreement and Peak Agenda Management software support and related services to extend the term to June 30, 2019 with additional compensation not to exceed $43,158 .75. 4. Adopt a resolution approving the parcel map for 360 Bella Vista Avenue RESOLUTION 2017-056 MOTION: VOTE : Motion by Council Member Jensen to approve the Consent Items recusing herself from Item four. Seconded by Vice Mayor Rennie. Motion passed unanimously for items one through three, and passed 4-0 for item four with Council Member Jensen recused VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS Jeff Loughridge Commented on development issues and needs of the Town. Angelia Doerner Commented on development projects in relation to Highway 9. Bob Burke Commented on traffic concerns Carolyn D. Commented on offering art lessons to Los Gatos youth. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. 40.1-409 Alberto Way -Architecture and Site Application S-15-056, Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009, and Environmental Impact Report EIR-16-001. Property Owner: CWA Realty. Applicant/Appellant: LP Acquisitions, LLC. Considering an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a request to demolish three existing offi ce buildings and construct a new, two-story offi ce building with below grade and at grade parking on property zoned CH. APN 529-23-018. (CONTINUED FROM September 19, 2017 -The Town Council opened and closed the Verbal Public Comment for this item at the September 19, 2017 Town Council Meeting. Staff Reports and Attachments can be found on our website under the September 19, 2017 Town Council Agenda) Council discussed the matter PAGE30F5 SUBJECT: MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 Public Hearing Item #5 -continued MOTION: VOTE: MOTION: VOTE: MOTION: VOTE : Motion by Council Member Jensen to continue the public hearing to a date certain with new information submitted that says the applicant will or will not offer the following: 1. Reduce second story by 4000 square feet. 2 . Recess windows on second story 3. Increase of public space on North end with easement or restriction that retains publicly accessible open space 4. Use of view glass 5. Increase landscaping 6. LEED certification to gold AND each of these accompanied by an analysis from staff. Include an indication of Cal Trans' opinion as to the traffic mitigation items that .effect Cal Trans. As well as any other information the appellant would provide . Seconded by Vice Mayor Rennie. Failed 3-2 with Mayor Sayoc, Council Member Leonardis, and Council Member Spector opposing. Motion by Council Member Jensen to remand to Planning Commission with the following direction: Determine whether the applicant will or will not offer the following: 1. Reduce second story by 4000 square feet. 2. Recess windows on second story 3. Increase of public space on North end with easement or restriction that retains publicly accessible open space 4. Use of view glass 5. Increase landscaping 6. LEED certification to gold AND each of these accompanied by an analysis from staff. Include an indication of Cal Trans' opinion as to the traffic mitigation items that effect Cal Trans. As well as any other information the appellant would provide .. Seconded by Vice Mayor Rennie. Failed 3-2 with Mayor Sayoc, Council Member Leonardis, and Council Member Spector opposing. Motion by Council Member Spector to remand back to Planning Commission due to the receipt of additional information . Seconded by Council Member Leonardis. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting went to recess at 8:55 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:05 p .m. This Page Intentionally Left Blank RESOLUTION 2017·056 RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS GRANTING AN APPEAL OF A DEOSIO:N OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH.THRBIHOOSTING OPFICE BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT A NEW,TWO·STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH BELOW GRADE AND AT GRADE PARklNG ON PROPERTY ZONED CH AND REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FO.R FURTHER CONSIDERATION •. APN: 529-23-018 ARC81TECTUREAND SJTEAPPLlCATION: S-15·056 CONDITIONAL USE PE~lT APPil<J\TION u .. tS-009 ENVIRO!YMENTALIMJ>A(:T '.REPORTEIR-16-001 PROPERTY LOCATION: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY PROPERTY OWNER: CWA REALTY APPUCANT /CONTACT ' PERSON: SHANE ARTERS, LP ACQUISITIONS, LLC WHEREAS, on August 10, 2016, August 24! 2016, October 26, 2016, January 11, 2017, March 22, 2017, April 12, 2017; and May 10, 2017~ the Planning Commission held public hearings and considered a request to demolish three existing office buildings for the: purpose of constructhig a new two-stnry Office building with below· grade and atgrade parking on property zoned CH. WHEREAS, ·on May 10; 2017, the Planning Commls,sion denied the Architecture and Site and ccinditional Use Permit appUcatf(>n$. WH£REAS1 on May ·19, 2017, the appltcantfil~d an appeal ohhe d«ision ofthe Planning Commission denying a request to demolish three existing office bu'ilding$, construction of a ne.w two-story office building with below grade and at grade parking. WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on September 19, 2017, and was regularly noticed in conformance with Stat~ and Town law. EXHIBIT 8 Resolution 2017-056 October 3, 2017 WHEREAS, the Town Council received testimony and d~umentary evidencf! frc;>m the ;JppeUants and all. interested per~ns who wished to t~stify ot submit doc&,1ments. Th~ T.own Council considered alt testlmtJny ~hd matertats submitted! lncJUdi.ng the record O.f the Planning Commission proceedings and tile packet of m.aterJal. contained in the CouncU Agenda Report for their meeting on September 19, 2017, along with any and aUsijbse<1ueot reports ~md material:S prepared con(:emiog this ap.plicati.on, WHEREAS, the Town Council ~htin.ued the hearing to October 3~ 2017 fo.r questions and discussion . WHEREAS, Couoc:il m~kes the following flnding; fn accordanc~ with Town Q>de section 29.20.300': New informatlo11 wa$ sobmittecfto the. Council durhig the appeal ~rocess that was not readUy and · reasonably available for submission to the commission. NOW~ THEREFORE, &E: IT RESOLVED: _l. The appeal of the decision l)f the Ptannlng Co~mis-sion denyf ng a requestt<> ~ . demolish three existing office buildings and construction of a new tw.o-story offite building with below grade and at grade parkins on property zoned CH Is granted and the appUcatlon~ are rem~nded to the P.lanning Commission for further consi9t?ratjqn. 2. The de~isio.n constitutes a fin.al admitilStr~tive d~ision pursuant to. c;'.cxJe of .Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by sectiOn 1.10.085 of the To:Wn Code of the Town of Los Gat9s. Any application for judicial. relief from this d~tision must be sou.sht within the time limits and pursuant to the· procedures establi~hed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as requi~ed by $te and federallaw. Resolution 2017-056 October 3t 2oi 7 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regutar meetlng of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 3rd day of Octo.ber, 2017, by the following vote: CO.UNCR MEMBERS: AVES: Mayor Marico Sayoc, Vice Mayor Rob Rennie, Council Member Marcia Jensen, Council Member Steven Leonardis, Council Membf:'!r Barbara Spector NAYS: None· ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SIGN'ED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF Cos GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA DATE: 10 j l I ·; ATTEST: ~~~· ClERk ADM!NtSTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOSGATOS,~t~ORNIA DATE: lb IJ1ll'l I Resolution 2017,.056 October 3,. 2017 LP ACQYISITIONS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT November 7, 2017 Ms. Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Phone: (408) 354-6872 Email: jarmer@losgatosca.gov RE: 405 Alberto Way Architecture and Site Application S-15 -056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 APN 529-23-018 Thank you for scheduling the above-referenced project for the upcoming Planning Commission hearing on December 13, 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 submitted the following applications: Architecture and Site Application 2- 15-056, Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009, and Environmental Impact Report EIR -16- 001 for a request to demolish three existing office buildings and the development of a new, two-story office building with below-grade and at-grade parking (the "Project") on the property formerly identified as 401-409 Alberto Way (405 Alberto Way) (the "Site11 }. During the Planning Commission's review of the Project, we made quite a few design changes to address the Commission's and public's comments. Such changes were considered highlights and were received positively by the Planning Commission. For example, we replaced the proposed building foundation with a concrete superstructure in order to significantly reduce the building height by 5.5 feet on the north side and 6.0 feet on the south side. We also eliminated the tower elements in response to the Planning Commission and neighbors' concerns that the elements were too prominent, and we eliminated the second-floor exterior balcony on the north (Las Casitas) side of the building. All second-floor exterior balconies face Alberto Way thereby enhancing the design hierarchy of the building to create more definition between the ground and second floor design elements. LP Acquisitions retained the Mission style architecture which maintains the small-town feel of other, nearby commercial developments in Los Gatos and resembles the massing focus on the ground floor and the human scale of the other existing buildings in the immediate neighborhood. 535 M iddlefield Roa d , Suite 190, M en lo Pa r k, CA 940 25 I 650.326.1600 EXHIBIT. 9 APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER And hi response to both the Town and neighbor concerns with respect to traffic and safety on Alberto Way, and consistent with the Town's Complete Street Ordinance, we are proposing to dedicate a portion of the site for the purpose of widening and straightening Alberto Way, allowing for the addition of both a bike lane in front of the property and an extended right turn lane onto Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Route 9). We identified locations for detached sidewalk improvements on both the Alberto Way and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Route 9) street frontages, and are proposing to install new curb, ramps and crosswalk at the Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Route 9) to the Uighwa)' 17 OA ramp. finally, we incl1:1ded a signal interconnect between Alberto Way/Los Gatos-Saratoga intersection and the Los Gatos Blvd/Los Gatos- Saratoga intersection to expedite traffic flow and to improve safety. After two years of processing and revising the Project to further reduce the size of the Project and provide for these design changes, the Planning Commission nonetheless denied the Project at its May 10, 2017 meeting on the basis that the Project was still too big. Following the May, 101 2017 denial, we appealed the Commission's action to the Town Council to review and overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the Project. At its meeting of September 19, 2017, the Town Council accepted public comments on our appeal and began its deliberations regarding the Project. While the Council appreciated some of the revisions and design features incorporated into the Project to further reduce the square footage to 83,000 square feet ("the Second Redesign"), the Council ultimately decided on October 3, 2017 to remand the Project back to the Planning Commission due to the receipt of additional Information and with a request to further reduce the size of the Project to 74,260 square feet ("the Third Redesign). We are submitting a Third Redesign of our Project plans to respond to the Council's direction to further reduce the size of the Project and provide additional design changes as further addressed below. All of the previous design changes remain in the design plans for the proposed Third Redesign. SUMMARY OF ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES: Since the October 3, 2017 Town Council meeting, LP Acquisitions initiated a comprehensive effort to redesign our Project for the third time in response to both the Town and neighborhood comments and concerns. Based on the feedback we received from the Town Council and the neighborhood, we revised the architecture to incorporate the following key design modifications: • We reduced the Project to 74,260 sf in accordance with the Council's direction and reduced the building massing to achieve a further reduction in the size and scale of the building. • LP Acquisitions and ArcTec met with the Town Staff on October gth in order to obtain their input and direction in the redesign process. As part of this effort, we presented the additional building size reduction, and Planning Department staff indicated that LP 2 APPLICANT RESPONSE LITTER Acquisitions' Third Redesign plan would be consistent with the EIR's Reduced Scale Alternative of 74,260 square feet. • The proposed 74,260 sf Project would reduce the overall parking spaces from 332 to 298, which ls a reduction of 30 garage parking stalls and 4 surface parking stalls. The reduction in garage parking stalls results in a smaller building footprint with a corresponding reduction in excavation. The reduced excavation results in commensurate reductions in the cost of earth movement and off-haul during the construction proeess. Please see the attaehed "Re\lised ProjeGt CoRstn.ictloA Export Details for 405 Alberto Way which indicates that the proposed Third Redesign will now require an estimated 50,671 cubic yards of cut and all construction staging can occur on site. According to the general contractor, the rough order of magnitude (ROM) savings for earth movement and off-haul alone would be as follows: • Concrete structure savings (reduced SF): Basement+elevated deck+Podium = 11,517 SF x $45/SF = $ 518,265 savings • Offhaul savings (reduced volume): Basement (S,105 SF x 22 ft = 112,310 CF I 27 CF/CY= 4,160 CY x $35/CY = $ 145,600 savings • Miscellaneous basement savings (shoring, waterproofing, MEP/F): Basement+elevated deck+Podium = 11,517 SF x $30/SF = $ 345,510 savings • Reduced square footage for the Building Shell: Building reduced SF 8, 740 SF x $250/SF = $2,185,000 savings With all of the reductions in square footage and reduced grading and off-haul, the Third Re- Design would result In a reduction in costs of approximately $3.2M to $3.SM. Consequently, with the reduction in grading and construction costs, the Third Redesign would be feasible. • The Third Redesign preserves 38 of the 42 at-grade parking spaces. • The Third Redesign reflected In the 74,260 square 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 plus an additional 11 feet proposed from the Second Redesign earlier this Spring); consequently, the additional building reduction of 8,740 sq. ft (83,000 less 74,260) on the northern side of the property now provides for more expansive mountain view corridors that will be visible from both the street and adjacent properties across Alberto Way. • The Third Redesign also creates more open space on the northern side of the building for a large dog park and an amenity area for tenants and visitors. 3 APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER • Lastly, the Third Redesign repositions the building entrance to the center of the site allowing the surface parking to be placed more evenly throughout the Project site than under the prior design. This repositioning also creates more open space at the southeast corner of the property for an additional amenity area open to tenants and visitors. The cumulative design and redesign modifications we have proposed over the last 24 months are designed to respond to the Planning Commission, Town Council and public's comments. The proposed modifications described abovQ are feasible and represent minor revisions and clarifications to the overall project description that will not add significant new information to the Town of Los Gatos 401-409 Alberto Way Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This Information will not require recirculation of the EIR because the proposed modifications will further lessen impacts that the Town previously found to be less than-significant as reflected in the EIR's discussion of the Reduced Scale Alternative. Further the changes incorporated into the Project would not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity 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 our submittal indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the EIR . SUMMARY OF COUNCIL DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANT FROM OCTOBER 3, 2017 PUBLIC HEARING The following summarizes key commen~s from the Town Council and 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 an open space easement/public space (PAPS) for both the dog area on the north side and the new area on the south side adjacent to the parking lot; Applicant Response: LP Acquisitions agrees to provide open space I public space for a dog area on the north side and an additional new open space area on the south side adjacent to the parking lot available for use by the tenants and the public/neighbors on an informal basis.· Town Council Comment: Reduce square footage to EIR alternative level of 74,260 square feet. Applicant Response: Please refer to the summary of architectural changes set forth above. As indicated in the summary above, the reduction in square footage is consistent with the EIR Reduced Scale Alternative contained in the EIR . Consequently, the EIR fully evaluated the environmental impacts associated with the Third Redesign proposal. Town Council Comment: Use Viewglass or similar product to create automatic dimming of the glass in the evening to meet neighborhood light standards 4 APPLICANT RESPONSE LITTER Applicant Response: The Third Redesign includes Viewglass for building window treatment in order to maintain privacy and reduce lighting impacts to nearby residents. Town Council Comment: Try to do something with the entry. Applicant Response: Please refer to the revised east elevation. The main entry retains the elegant two-story element and canopy over the main entry doors to help identify the main entry of the bt1ilding. The entry has beel'I further hflpre'Jed h•t pro¥iding a more s•tmmetriGal look on either side of the main entry element. Equal-sized punched window openings are located on the ground and second floor on each side of the main entry and the dimension of the two-story vertical walls on each side of the main entry are now identical. The change in the main entry design provides for a more easily identifiable main entry and also better frames the main entry than under the Second Redesign. Town Council Comment: Recess the window further on the second floor to create detail. Applicant Response: The northern fa~ade of the building has been pulled back one full column bay (30 feet) on the north side so the window line is now further away from the northern property line that abuts the neighboring residential property to the north. Recessed punched windows and trellis features at each punched window opening have been retained from the previous design. As the building is now narrower when viewed from Alberto Way, the repetition of windows on each different fa~ade element has been reduced, giving the building a more elegant look and feel from the prior design. Town Council Comment: Design and build the building to LEED Gold level; Applicant Response: The site and building will be designed to LEED Gold equlvalency. Town Council Comment: Increase tree sizing in the front to shield the building sooner from the neighborhood. Appllcant Response: Please refer to the revised landscape plans. We increased the tree sizes In the Second Redesign in several key locations along the Alberto Way side of the building. Town Council Comment: Provide a condition to allow overflow parking in the surface lot area in off-business hours. Applicant Response: LP Acquisitions agrees to a condition of approval allowing for nearby residents to use the Project surface lot parking spaces after business hours. Town Council Comment: Schedule weekly traffic meetings during construction. 5 APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER Applicant Response: The Third Redesign reduces the size and footprint of the underground parking structure with a corresponding decrease in the overall parking count by 34 spaces. The reduction in the footprint of the structure and the corresponding reduction in parking spaces provides for an area on the Project site to serve as construction staging, in accordance with the Planning Commission's request in the Second Redesign of the Project. The on-site construction staging area reduces the amount of export off-haul during excavation. Please see the attached "Revised Project Construction Export Details for 405 Alberto Way'' and 11 Revised Project Construction Details for 405 Alberto Way which further describe the revisions. Additionally, the prepesed Censtruction Plan, v1hich will be formal!·; sybmitted for review by the Town CoLmcil during the permit review stage, provides for weekly construction management meetings with the neighbors. Fowler Comment Letter: Describe the expected hours for potential tenants. (Fowler letter) Applicant Response: The proposed hours of operation for tenants in the building are from 7am to 6pm Monday through Friday. Fowler Comment letter: Provide information regarding the "high demand" for Class A office space in Los Gatos. Where is the demand coming from, Los Gatos or elsewhere? Applicant Response: The current Class A office vacancy rate in Los Gatos is less than 1.5%, as indicated in the report generated by Colliers. Please see the attached "Colliers Los Gatos Office Class A Snapshot". Such a low vacancy rate indicates that there Is an enormous demand for more Class A office in Los Gatos. The Tech industry is driving the increased office demand in the Silicon Valley with an emphasis on bringing jobs close to housing. Fowler Comment Letter: Explain why the project objectives could not be met by a building less than 83,000 square feet. Applicant Response: We provided extensive information In our prior correspondence to the Town explaining why the 74,260 square foot building was determined to be infeasible. With the further adjustments to the building design and reduction in excavation, we have been able to substantially redl:'ce the costs of construction for the 74,260 square foot building so that it would be feasible from a cost and technological perspective as further explained above. Town Council Comment: Please clarify the Caltrans encroachment permit process and when Caltrans will provide input regarding the proposed improvements within Caltrans right-of-way. Applicant Response -In the attached letter dated November 1, 2017 (the "Hexagon Letter"), Hexagon summarizes the Caltrans encroachment permit process. The proposed widening of Los Gatos-Saratoga Road with the offsite improvements requested by the Town Council will encroach on Caltrans right-of-way, and will therefore require an encroachment permit from Caltrans. Caltrans submitted its comment letter dated June 13, 2016 to the DEIR (see attachment to the Hexagon letter). Pursuant to Caltrans' Encroachment Permits Manual, in •. 6 APPLICANT RESPONSE LITTER order for Caltrans to approve the off-site Improvement along Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, LP Acquisitions must apply for an encroachment permit from Caltrans. Once the Project is approved by the Town Council, the Project will submit an encroachment permit application with the design plans and specifications to Caltrans for its review. In its review of the application, Caltrans will work with the applicant and Town staff to review and finalize the design plans. After Caltrans approves the design plans, Caltrans will issue an encroachment permit for the construction of the offsite improvements. Town Cot1ncfl Comment: PrepaFe a brief eMplanatien of he•N the transportation and cir:culatior:i and parking issues were previously evaluated in the EIR for the project, the 83,000 sf revised plan, and the reduced scale alternative and the 74,260 sf project would not result in new significant impacts. Applicant Response: Hexagon prepared several technical letters addressing the Project's traffic impacts and the impacts of the 83,000 square foot buildings reflected in the Second Redesign. Hexagon's letter to the Town was peer revised by the Town's traffic consultant and determined to be adequate. Further, since the 74,260 square foot Third Redesign is consistent with the Reduced Scale Alternative evaluated in the EIR, the Third Redesign would not result in any additional traffic impacts compared to those previously evaluated for the Project. Town Council Comment: Provide technical information as necessary to address the geotechnical aspects of a smaller building footprint and parking garage and how this was addressed in the EIR and subsequent peer reviewed geotechnical reports. Applicant Response -ENGEO previously prepared an extensive design-level Geotechnlcal Evaluation for the Project, which was peer-reviewed by AMEC Foster Wheeler. ENGEO's response letter to the peer review comments was accepted by the Town and was used by 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. Subsequently, ENGEO provided responses to public comments as a part of LP's Supplemental Responses Letter dated as of May 9, 2017 with regard to the 83,000 square foot revised plan. ENGEO's comments were peer-reviewed by AMEC, and AMEC concurred with ENGEO's supplemental response letter to the public comments and affirmed the feasibility of the project from a geologic and geotechnical standpoint. Pursuant to its Supplemental Response dated November 1, 2017 which is attached to this letter, ENGEO has reviewed the reduced 74,260 square foot proposed Project, the revised below-grade parking, and the overall'reduced footprint. Based on such reductions, ENGEO has concluded that the revisions are expected to further reduce the already negligible potential impacts to surrounding properties. The geotechnical aspects of the Project have been thoroughly assessed and the proposed changes do not result in any new significant impacts, and support the analysis contained in the EIR. Additional Fowler Comment Letter: Request for complete information about water table on the 405 Alberto Way site and more borings. 7 APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER Applicant Response -Please see the attached EN GEO November 6, :·.c :rl Response t~; Public Comments. As previously state d the design groundwater lev el of 12 feet below existing grade is recommended in the project geotechnicaJ·report, which was peer-review ed by AMEC Foster Wheeler as well as the neighbor's engi neeri ng representative, Geissler Engineering who concurred with the recommended design groundwater l:.~vd of 12 feet below existing grade. We appreciate.the Town's consideration of our third revised proposal and look forward to the Planning Commission's action regarding our Project at its December 13 , 2017 meeting. Sincerely, Sh an e Arters cc: Ra ndy Lam b D a n Ki r by Jolie Houst o n Alicia Guerra Gary Black nme Zhou Uri Eliahu Bob Bo ech e 8 Lp ACQ!JISITIONS REAL ESTATE DEVELOP ME NT Revised Project Construction "Export" Details for 405 Alberto Way Updated and Revised November 3, 2017 Based on the original design submitted to the Town on July 13, 2016, this project required a total of 69,700 cubic yards of cut; thus, resulting in 6,970 truck trips or 8 weeks of off haul. Then we resubmitted to the Town on March 17, 2017 and the revised redesign required a total of 53,451 cubic yards of cut; thus, resulting in approximately 4,859 to 5,345 t:rnck trips or 5.5 to 6 weeks of off haul. With the proposed new redesign of this projec~ this project will now require a total of 50,671 cubic yards of cut and all construction staging can occur on site. One large dump truck can carry 10 cubic yards or 11 cubic yards (with a small diaper trailer); therefore, 4,606 to 5,067 truck trips would be generated. Based on construction industry standards, 200 Joads a day would take 23 work days plus a few more days for the potential of slow production. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the total export of 50,671 cubic yards would take 23-26 work days, M-F or 4 .6 to 5.2 weeks. This results in an additional reduction of 1 week of off haul. See attached haul routes. In conclusion, our proposed size of the structure has now been reduced to 74,260 sf and the below grade parking garage has also been reduced too. Tue redesigned project is also referred to as the EIR's Reduced Scale Alternative. We estimate that construction export/off haul to be approximately 5 weeks, down from 8 weeks. 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190, Menlo Park, CA 94025 I 650.326.1600 I t; , ~"'. • ·:.~ :··::"' Lil~ ll •l tn. Cdlltlht /l,)'lCJ.,I G gt. Lfnl G.ti ~ C<m1uu h~O<:IDI LP ACQ!JISITIONS REAL ESTATE DE V ELOPMENT Revised Project Construction Details for 405 Alberto Way Updated and Revised November 3, 2017 General Construction Timeline: • Project construction will occur.in a single phase with construction commencing in summer 2018. • All construction staging to occur on site. • The construction timeframe is 14 to 16 months including all phases from the start of demolition to the completion of all site work. • Strict Safety measures will be implemented (i.e. minimum of 2 flagmen positioned on Alberto Way during grading and construction, and weekly Community Meetings open to all residents) will ensure rapid ingress/egress of emergency veh icles on Alberto Way and open communication of all Construction processes to residents. Site Grading: • The project will require excavation and shoring to accommodate a 2-story underground parking structure. • See attached export details and route map of dump-truck travel. • The General Contractor will implement Dust Control Measures which meet the Town standards. • Estimated timeline for excavation, grading and shoring is 2.75 months. Underground Garage Construction: • This phase will include digging footi ngs, preparing the pad, installing drainage and undergrounding, and waterproofing. • This phase will also include installation of rebar and structural materials to accommodate the concrete floors and sides of the parking structure. • The top of the parking structure will be the foundation of the building. • Our General Contractor will work closely with our Structural, Civil and Geotechnical engineers to incorporate the highest construction standards to meet building codes . • · Estimated timeline for this phase is 4 months. Core & Shell Building Construction: • This phase will include structural, flooring, skin and roof. • All connections to public utilities. • Estimated timeline for this phase is 6 to 7 .25 months. Site Work: • On -site finished hardscape, concrete sidewalks and paving. • Landscape including all trees and plants. • Outside meeting area arbors and dog park. • Estimated timeline is 1 to 2 months. Offsite Work: • This work will be done duri ng the Core & Shell work noted above. • Estimated timeline for completion is concurrent with Core & Shell. Completion of Construction • This proj ect is estimated t o be complet ed by late Fall 2019. I.OS Gatns Offl~ Class A Available Space Total Toe1I Dini ct Stmlnsa Direct 6ub!ea5• AvaUJl~le Awila~ Bulldm>g Q .... .u. 0.to Vaoant Vaaant Oocupl&d Occllflad lpaco Space Riii Bau 03-17 0 ... 17 1,HD 0 S,150 4,739 \1,888 U2'11o H7,l40 Sop.17 1,1199 0 8.150 0 7,149 O.BO'llo 897,&40 AUIJ-17 1,999 0 5 ,150 0 7.149 O.Bll"Ao 897,MO 02-17 Ju\.17 1,899 D S.150 0 7.149 0.80% 897.840 Jun-17 1,999 0 0 0 1,1199 0.22% 914,D!IO Ma)'-17 3,098 0 1.999 0 5,097 D.56% 914,090 01-17 ... pl'-17 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 914,090 Mar-17 0 0 0 0 0 0.00'llo 856.3'40 Fet>-17 0 0 D 0 D O..DO'llo 855,340 Total Available Space Rate 1.<I0'.11[. ==--------==~/ 1.20% ! ::1· r-~~~~~~~~~~~--·~~2.~- ~ I I 0.-' -·--- 04-18 Jan-17 D 0 0 0 0 O.DO'llo !55,s411 010-111 0 D D Z,137 2,137 0.33% !55,340 0.20ll /., _________ _ Nov-16 0 0 0 Z,137 2.137 0.33% 855,s.40 03-16 Ocl-1! n : 0 2,137 2,137 0.33'% 655,MO 0.00% ~;;;-~:::;;---;;::::;;-~:'.::"---::~-:-:---::--:-·-----~-~-~-~--Ol:l-1t Nov-18 Cco-18 .Jon.17 Fol>-17 -.11 Apr-17 Mlrf-17 Jlo>-17 Jul-17 Aac-17 Sep-17 Od-17 Loi Gatos Offic• Cius A Absorption Grau Abaarptlon • Not Aboorpfion 300.000..--------------------------------------- Gross ~ Gn>&& Not Absorp6on Ahorplil>R l 250,000 Quarter Dall Dalla Rang• Ab.ollfpiion ADsorplion Quarter Quartar 03-17 Od-17 B/1117 11> 10/1/H 0 0 4,829 0 200~00+-------~---------I Sop.17 Bn/17 11>11/1/17 0 A119-17 711117 II> 111117 4,821: 0 150.000 02-17 Ju\.17 fl/1117 lo 7/1/17 0 0 0 -5,097 Jun--17 5/1117 ID 11/1/17 0 ·1,999 Ma}"17 411117 ID !111/17 0 ·3,098 100.000 . ~ 01-17 Apr-17 311117 la '411117 258.750 258,750 :tSl,750 ~.750 Mar-17 211/17 to 3/1117 0 D 50.000---------------- Fol>-17 1/1/17 to '111/17 0 D 04-11 Jan-17 1211118 to 1/1117 2.557 0 2.587 011<>18 1111/16 to 1211116 0 0 Nov·16 10/1/15 "'11/1116 0 0 03-18 Ocl-16 !111116 "' 1C/1116 0 0 17,298 2,298 0 I I I ' -50,000 Od-11 Nov-16 Dee>-• Jon.17 Fel>-17 .._.17 .t.pr-17 Moy-17 Jun·17 Jul-17 AUl>-17 Sop-17 Cl<:t-17 Las Gatos Office C!aas A Waightad AW111IJI Aslting Rents Weigtll8d Average Asking Rents '8.00 ~,--------------------------------------- .. Weighlec! a ... ,, •• Date Rant in FS 03·17 Ocl-17 Sll.115 Sap-17 &6.46 Auq-17 S5."5 Q:!.17 Ju~17 S5All Jun-17 13.96 M•y-17 H.lia 01-17 Apt-17 S0.00 M•l'-17 SO.CD Feb-17 $0.00 04-18 Jen-17 SO.DO O.c-16 $3.115 Nov-1& B.115 03-18 Oct-16 13..15 i . ·-----:~ /-V \ __ ~ \ I . \ I :I I Ol:l-11 Nay.18 0•<>-11 J.,.17 Fol>-17 --17 Apr-17 lllloy-17 .lln-17 Ju~1T Aull-17 S•p-17 DCl-17 Comc•:i. antemelonal • pleilSad m bl: able ID ,nwlde N move inlormallaft. and in so doing belie¥• .. vlldl~. Hclwl:vcr, M cannat guerantt:• its RC&HCY ar take ruponafbllft!/ ..,. ils me. U(XA~OH T~ANSPO~TATION (OHSU l TANT S, IN<. Mr . Randy Lamb Lam b Partners 535 Middlefield Road , Su ite 190 Me nl o Park, CA 94025 Subject: Overview of Ca/trans Encroachment Permit Process for Off-Site Improvements Dea r Mr. LH(:b: H3~~annn ·rr:-.;nspOii:ation Co nsultants, '.nt:, has !ir.'-:p::t1 n d this bt.'.f )i. to provide a hig~1··l::i11;:-il (fl!~1vinw •Jf H·J::J {~8iirnns ~nCl"~.}~~ci lii·]~·H 1£ p·~nr~1;· !J! Ol:U~3~; ·;~(':' !",;·~,~ oft··~-~Hg ;n lpi'V\1~1!'1 ~~:~! !~'.B p1·{.1 ~)(l!~f;C; by (~;a -10 ·i ... /~·OB J\lbari.0 VVr..y rime .::, projt-ic•'. In Ln3 Or.iio::;, Gi::llifon ;ir-:i. /\t ·ths 1-.-_;qumfi :·.1r l'f;w1 ~ :~t.•Jrf, i:I'"!~) proj::-Jct prvr·~·ir;o:;; io 1r1!don t·~-~; Ge:1i:c~.; .. ~·i1.:iraiog:-~ Ho~d (l· liQhvv;:iy ~)) al<:rn1 Hs fron~,,;~~. ·to pr,lvick! roci\ • i'o;· f!Ji:tm.~ bik'~ l ;;.mr.:~>. ~m.J t..:i r:;ibuild ·ihe ~ido1Nfi l!< gr;. u det<.;r:t1~:d Walk. ·nw:X·) imprcv:e;nonts Wlil r::;qui 1 ·~~ ui i ;::m\:;ro::1Ghff1rmt p~m; 1it from G1?.ltrut1~; bac.n1 i !">:~ 'i:i l'<JY ar;:i in ti :c~ 1 ;~.1ltrnns r i!-]hl~of~w".ly. c~iltr:-im µmvk:bd::: COiHff1m1t lette,-on t.h f; f;l.:a~ (d::.itcd June ·10, ~~o·ic. ~·e<i aHavhmant ), which ~hc·wod ~h~~~3 i•np;·ov.~1ni-)1";1:r,, ::im:i !:lpra~r,~d to bi-i in ~'''P:X>ri (~~t li:.~lst ~:10y n11~~r1:.id no obj~••~tirn1~1). in °i'act, C~1Hr~1 n ,.; niqur!::;;t<Jd ih;;1( 1j·y1 µir.i}:-;c;\ r1;rlhnr i:;nht:!l'!G(\ p:1r;G:;:irltm lH~7t;~:y b11 tlddinf,! fb:-u.:,]·i)ng l.;-e::::1 <:cn~ to ~;,,<:) ci ·0~sw<c1l!t t h~it i::ro0s::iG the 11 Gr!.hbo! md i-Hr:;i :lN'.:1y 'i"f nn-·rnrnp i'r•:!i111.m: Gr::ii:•Jt>·· Saratoga Road. Per Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manua/1, the process for C1:1itr:.:in~ approval of the off-site improvement along Los Gatos-Saratoga Road is that the project, once approved by Town of Los Gato s, submits an encroachment permit application with design plans to Caltrans. Caltrans will work with the applicant and Town staff to review and fi nali ze the design plans. When the design plans are approved by Caltrans, an enc roachment permit will be issued for the constructior.. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS , INC . :.~o.i-y I\. ,,:Jlnck President Attachment: 401-409 Alberto Way Office Development I )rojm:t -Draft Environmental Impact Report, written by Patricia Maurice, d11imJ June i~l. 2016 . 1 Sae we bsite http:/Jwww.dot.ca.gov/trafficoos/ep/manual.html. acc essed on l\!ov ember 1, 2017 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 • San Jose, Ca llfornia 95113 • phone -10~'.971 .6100 • i":3l: 408.971.6102 • www.i1<.?::(r.t>1s.r.•.;m Jun 13 2016 3 :25P" HP LASERJET FR~ l!A!I. QfCtJ 'fQIN16d'f.1ftlNIA s.ran;.DtJllPOITA!IOJC AHNt'y DEPARI'MENT or TRANSPORTATION DisnlCT4 P.a . 80XlH60 · OAXl.Al«J. CA .. ~ PHOM! (SlO) 2"·5521 FAX (SID)21M5st TN TU www.dDe.c&pv luno 13 , 2016 Ma. Jcmim Armer Communlty Development DeJtartmcnt Town o(Los Oaioa 110 B. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Ml. Armer: p.1 JQMDtpA MQWN% r..,., SCLVAR063 SCUV AR/PM VAR SCH# 201Sl22041 411-4ff Alberto Way Otllee DneloP..eat Project-Draft l'AMremnatal lmIMCf Report 'lbank you for continuina to include the California Department of Transportation (Caltnlll) in the envirOD!Dldal mview process for the above-refarmccd psojed. Caltrans' De\v mission, vision, md pals slpal a modemiutlon Of Olr lppl'OICh to California 11 S1ate TransponatiOD Network (SlN), in which we seek to rccl\loe statewide vehicle mUCs traveled (VMT) and inaeuc non-auto modes or active traatJOrtation. Caltran1 plan1 to increase non-auto mode shares by 2020.through 1riplfng bicycle. md doubling bo4b pedestrian and tnmlt. Also, tbelre t.-gets support the Metropolitan Transpartation Commissioa's (MTC) Suminable Communities Stratesy (SCS), which promotes the increase of nolHUto mode Bbare1 by ten percentage: points and a decrease in automobile VMT par oapita by tea peRCDt. Ourcommentl are bued on the Draft Bnvirolllmmlal ImplCt Rcpon (DEIR). Pleue alao refer to the previOUI commart lcttcn on tbia project and incorpo1atcd haein. Project U11~ TM propolCd project is loon:d immediately~ to tbe northbound cm·nmp fi'om St11e Rout. (SR) 911.os Gato• Smrtop Road to SR t 7 in. Jhc northeut qumrant of1he ~ It '1¥0Uld domolim the existinc 93,SOO IC(Ull'O-foot (sf) general office complex and replace it with a 93,SOO sf aeneraJ office pomplex. Access to the project aitc would be provided via twO driveways located on Alberto Way . L#tl lflMcy . As the lead.agency, the Town of Los Gatos (ToWll) is ~nsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to State highways. 1he project's fair share contn"bution, finmciq. scheduliq. implementation dlpoNibilitics and lead agen~ monitoriq 1hould bo fillly df.lcuaed 1br all proposed mitiption meuurct. Jun 13 2016 3:25PH HP LASERJET FAX Ms. Jennifer Arm.erll'own of Los Gatos J~ll.2016 Page2 J>qff~ btlp•m p.2 1. 'This development will add trips greater. than one peaceat of capacity on aoUlhboUDd SR 17 during AM and PM peak houri, 80 will 1igmficantly impact the STN ed require mitigation. For example, the noithbound (NB) SR. 171Saratoga Loa Oatoa Road diagonal on-ramp and the aouthbound (SB) SR 17/Suatoga Los Gatos Road loop an-ramp have existing ramp meteriq equipment installed and are to be further metered in the future with mecering ratca typically between 240 .and 900 vehicles per hour. These additional trips will significantly impact the capacities of these ramps. 2. A closed circuit television (CCTV) oemera, ramp metering, and other traffic monitoring are iu5talled in the area of the Saratoga Los Oatos Road (SR 9) on-ramp to NB SR. 17. The proposed development bas the potential to impact these i~lltions, putlcularly the conduit which NAS to the service connections at Alberto Way. Please refer to the Al-Built plans for BA 150264, l St 364, and othu Klevant EAs and field vorify locations of the installations and conneQtions, as e1tisting conditions may have changed (e.a •• the recent Bridge Rail Replacement Project, EA IA3404). l'dicl6 ~ Redllcti.fllr Caltrans encourages the City to locate future housing. jobs. and employec~relatcd services near m&Jor mass transit centers with connecting streets configmed to facilitate Walkina and biking .. This would promote mass transit use thereby reducing regional VMT 8Dd traffic impacts. 1. Transportation Demand Maoagement (TOM) prognms should be documented with annual monitoring rep;>rb by a onsite 1DM coordinator to demonstrato effectiveneu. Soagcstcd TDM strategics include working with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to doq'case headway times and improve way.finding on bus lines to provide a better coimectiou between the project and regioaal destinations and providing: • Secured bicycle storage fKilitics. • Pi)C·it bicycle~ 1tation(1). • Bieycles for employee uses io aeceu local mo'\ll'Ces, • Amenities, a.aces1 and COJUlectiom, incmpotate wide sfdewafb. • ~ chansiog roomt and clothing locbn. · • 10 percent vehicle parking reduction. • Catpool aad olCln·fucl parkiq spacce. • Transportation and wmmutc information kiosk. • Outdoor patios, out.doOr areas, f\lmiture, pedestrian palhways, picnic and recreational areas. • Nearby walkable amenities. • Membership in a transportation management asaociation. • Kicka0ffcommuterevent at full occ:upa:n~. • Employee transportation coordinator. • Tnmsit subsidies and/or tnmiit passes to all employees. • Emer1cmcy ~de Home program. "PTflllttk II •• ""'hlilfQb/e, ,,,tqlll/M lllllf ~(fllf lrtWpOl'1fltilfl ,1.)4tt11a to rlflt*'" C.l(on1l1 ~ .conollt)' l1fi tw.bJJtry •• Jun 13 2016 3:25PM HP LASERJET FAX Ms. Jennifer Anner/Town of Los Galo& lune 13, 2016 Page3 p.3 • Transit and trip planning reaomces. • Caipool md vanpool ride·matabina support. • Bicycle route m1ppJn1 resourcos and' Jncea.tM.ze bicyde parJcin.c, UJIWndlin& of residential padciJig. and providing transit passea and/or transit 1ubsidies 10 tesidmts. These ~growth approac.hel are consistent 'With the MTC 1s Rqional Tr~rtation Plaa/SCS ao-1• and wwld meet Caltrma Stndepc Mmqement Plan. 2. The project will in.ensue pedostriara demand Ind. proposes to reconstruct the curb ramps ond sidewalks, u well as stripe a new crosswalk, at tlat cutbowul Saratoga Loa Galos Road to the NB Sit. 17 on-ramp. Caltnna recomrnenda the now Q'Otswalk consist of higb .. visibility. ladder-style markinp. The project developer should also coordmate with Caltrans aad the Town to provide a rectangular rapid ftashing be.Con at this location. in order to inciease motorist awarenesa of pedestrians mvssing the roadway. 3. The project proposes to provide 39S p1tkina sp1ccs. although a development of 1h.i1 scalc and scope 11 required to pro~e 372 spaces according to the Town'• municipal code. In order to discourage driving. thereby reducing VMT and impacts to the STN; we msommend that the: pro~ c:onsider a recluetion in paddag supply. bclucina pmfdnc supply ca encourage altemate forms of transportation, reduc:e regional VMT •and luaen filtura tnftic impacts on. SR. 17, SR.·9. md tbe S1N. Please rc6r to ''Refonuina Perkin&' Policies to Support Smart Orowfh," a MTC study funded by Caltrans1 for sample parking ratios and ltrategies that support c:Glllpacl growth. Tl'l/lk 1,,,,_·Feu Olven.1be prql•'sGOD1ribution to mea ~c and Its proximity to SR 17 and SR 9, the project s.bould contn°bute fair shme traffic impact fees to the planned SR 17 ramp meferin& future awciliary llKB. and other improvements to SR 17 and SR 9 to mitigate theae impacts. Tbcsc contn"butions would be used to lessen future tra1fic congestioll and improve tnmit in the project viainity. Vol1t11tBY CMtJ16lltlon l'rtl6rt1m We cncouragc the City to participate in the VTA ,s voluntary contribution program and plan for the impact of filture arowth on tho regional transpo11&Uon system. For oxampl~ VTA is ildrimted in lludying the SR 17 corridor md 1eouring funding for the stud)'. Contributions by the City funding regional tran&parlation progmms would improve the tdnlportation system by n:ducing congestion and improvin1 mobility on major roadways throughout the San FranciJco Bay Arca. TN.[/lt: C.llllwl Pl•n Since it is ~that vehicular, bicycle, and pedes1rian traffic will be impacted during the consbuction of the proposed project requiring traffic restrictions and detours, a CaJtran&- approved Traffic Control Plan (TCP) is required to avoid project-related impacts to the STN. The TCP mat alto comply with the requiremaits of oonetpOlleting juiiediotions. In addition. pedestrian access through the construction zone 1nust be In accordance with the Americans with Jun 13 2016 3:25PM HP LASERJET FA~ Ma. Jennifer Armer/Town of Los Oatos June 13. 2016 Page4 p.4 Disabilities Ad (ADA) regulations (see Caltrans' Temporary P1de1tritm Facillti" Handbook for maintaining pedestrian access and meeting ADA mquinments during construction at: www.dolc:a.plbq/oonstruc/safetyff emporary _Pcdeltrian_Pa.cilities_Handbook.pdt) (see also Caltrans' Tnftic Operations Policy Directive 11-01 "Accommoduina Bicyclists in Temporary Traffic Conuol Zones'• at: www.dot.ca.govlhqltnffops/policyll l..Ol.pclf). All curb ramps and peclestrUID facilities located within the limits of the project 1ro required to be brought up to current ADA standards as part of this project. For further TCP assitbmc.e, please contact the Caltranl Di11rict 4 Office of Tn.ftio Management Operations at (StO) 286-4579. Purthcr traffic management infonnation is available at the following website: · www .dot.ca.gov/hqltraftbpsltra1itltmp_lcs/index.htm. Enc1Wcllment Pandt Please be advised that any work or traffic eontrol that encroaches onto the Stale right-of-way (ROW) requires an encroachment petmit that is iuued by Caltrans. To apply, a completocl encroachment permit application, environmental docummtatiori, and five (S) &eta of plans clearly indicating State R.OW must be submitted to: David Salladay, Diatrict Office Chief, Office of Permits, California Department of Transportation, District 4, P.O. Box 23660, Oaklmd, CA 94623-0660. Traffic-related mitigation musures should be incorporated into the construction plans ·prior to the encroachment pomUt proceas. See this webtite for moie information: www.dot.ca.gov/hqltmffopsldevelopserv/permits. Should YoU have any questions reaarding this letter, pleue contact Brian Ashurst at (S 1 O) 286· ssos or brian.ashunt@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, PATRICIA MAURICE District Brandi Chief Local Development -Intergovernmental Review c: Scott Morgan. State Clearinghouse Robe.rt Swierk, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) .,.. electronic copy Robert Cunningham, Santa. Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) -eleetronic copy "/l~vlf# ti •• lfftltllutk. "'1fl10tff tlllt/(//lcit"' "51fr(l0f'/fltitltl .r,vm• 111 allioirc~ Ca/flcrllhr'uC01tM1-1 ll¥06~" -·Expect E-:xcellence ·-- November 2, 2017 Ms. Alicia Guerra Buchalter Nemer 55 Second Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94105 Subj ect: 401-409 Alberto Way Los Gatos, California NOVEMBER SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE Dear Ms. Guerra: GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Project No. 12175.000.000 At your request, we prepared this supplemental response letter for your project at 401-409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos, California. Specifically, we are responding to potential project modifications and related geotechnical items. We p reviously prepared a design-level geotechnical report for the project (Reference 3), which was peer reviewed by AMEC Foster Wheeler (AMEC, Reference 1 ). Our response letter to the AMEC peer review comments (Reference 4) was accepted by the Town of Los Gatos. We subsequently prepared a supplemental response-to-comment letter (Reference 5), which was also peer reviewed by AMEC (Reference 2). As stated in Reference 2, AMEC concurred with our supplemental response letter to the public comments and affitmed the feasibility of the subject project from a geologic and geotechnical standpoint. We understand the proposed size of the structure has been reduced to approximately 74,260 square feet. In addition, the below-grade parking has also been reduced and the footprint of structure has been pulled into the site increasing the distance between the structure and property boundary. These revisions are expected to further reduce the already negligible potential impact to surrounding properties. The geotechnical aspects of the project site have been thoroughly assessed and the proposed changes do not result in any new significant impacts and support the analysis contained in the EIR for the project. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Scott .Johns, PE Attachment: Selected References SUBJECT TO ATfORNEY DIRECTION -ATIORNEY WORK PRODUCT 6399 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 150 •San Jose, CA 95119 • (408) 574-4900 • Fax(888) 279-2698 www.engeo .com ·-----·---~· ~,, ~ l]GEO EKpec: Exce llence ·-·· SELECTED REFERENCES I. AM EC ; Peer Review -Geotech nical Exploration Report; 401 /\i::?~~!~c1 W-cc,y , : n;: Gatos , Californ ia ; Novemb e r 4 , 201 5. A M EC Proj ect No. 0 0 84491 9 60 . 2. AMEC Foster Wheeler; Geotechnical Peer Review ; 4 0 1-409 Alberto W ay , : . .1.).)1 G atos, Californ ia ; April 28 , 2017. A M EC Proj ect No. 084491960. 3 . ENGEO; Geotech n ical Ex ploration; 40 1 A lberto Way , Los Gatos, California ; .Ju.ly 1 7, ~:n ~:_.: (Revised Augu st 13, 2015). E NGEO Project No. 12175.000.000. 4 . ENGEO; Response t o AMEC Fo st er Wheeler Peer Review Co mments; 401 A lberto W ay , Los Gatos, California ; Jan uary 11, 201 6 . ENGE O Project No . 12175.000.0 00. 5 . ENGEO; Supplemental Response to Public Comments; 401-4 09 /\!i'K'i'k Way, L os G::ii.o r0 Califo rn ia; A p ril 19 , 2017. ENGEO Project No. 12175.000 .000. SUBJECT TO ATTO RN EY O:RECTl ON -ATTORNEY WO RK PRODUCT 12175.000.000 November 2, 2017 Expect Excellence· November 6, 2017 Ms. Alici a Guerra Buchalter Nemer 55 Seco nd Street, Suite 1700 San Fran ci sco, CA 94105 Subj ect: 401-·409 Alberto Way Los Gatos, California NOVEMBER Siii RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Dear Ms. Guerra : GEOTECHNICAl. ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCT!ON SERVICES -·-·-------- Project No. 12175.000.000 At your request, we prepared this supplemental response Jetter for you r project at 401 ~409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos , California . Ms. Loretta Fowler, Secretary, Committee on Alberto Way Development sent two emails to the Town of Los Gatos, attention Jennifer Armer, between November 3 and November 5, 2017, titled "Request for complete information about water table on the 405 site." Our response to Ms. Fowler's comment is as follows: M s. Fowler Comment 1 We at The Commons request that new borings be made on tne 401-409 Alberto Way site and the readings provided to us and to the Planning Commission. In its initial report, ENGEO failed to address the question of whether the neighboring properties would be adversely affected by the excavation of a two level underground garage on that site. The ENGEO report of 711712015 stated that three exploratory borings were done on 6/27 but data on the water table was given for only the two boring sites on the south side. We have 1'9Bson to believe that the water table is much higher on the north end of the site, and we want the water table readings there, which will require new borings. This is a very serious issue for the neighbors on Alberto Way and we believe ENGEO has not convincingly addressed It. Peer reviewer Amee Foster Wheeler did not catch this problem even though our expert Dr. Peter Geissler pointed it out. Before the next Planning Commission hearing, we would like the Town to require that these borings on the north side of the site be done and tl1e readings from them produced to document the depth of the water table. We residents of Alberto Way feel that our properties are at risk and neither the developer's agent ENGEO nor the town's peer reviewer has given due consideration to our concerns. Thanks for looking into this, Jennifer. We have a different take. Figure 2 in ENGEO's Appendix C does show the borings: 83 on the north end and B 1 and 2 on the south end of the site. In the Boring Logs in Appendix A of this report, 81 went down 15 feet and encountered no groundwater. 82 went down farther and at 21 feet encountered groundwater. But 83 did not measure depth to groundwater due to "caving when removing augers." As I said, we are skeptical and our concern is bolstered by the Santa Clara District Water maps for the area. So, we would like a new boring and readings from the north part of the site, where ENGEO says there is potential for liquefaction, by the way. SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT ... -.. 6399 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 150 ° San Jose, CA 95119 Q (408) 574-4900 •Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com Buchalter Nemer 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos NOVEMBER 6th RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ENGEO Response to Comment 1 12175.000.000 November 6, 2017 Page 2 ENGEO responded to a similar comment in April 2017 (Reference 5). As previously stated in Reference 5, the design groundwater level of 12 feet below existing grade recommended in the project geotechnical report represents a historic high groundwater level obtained from maps published by the State of California. The California State map used in design Incorporates data provided by the Santa Clara Valley Water District as well as additional sources. Because the project incorporates historic high groundwater levels in design, and not the deeper than historic groundwater depths observed during drilling, additional borings as requested by the commenter are not required. Peer reviewer AMEC Foster Wheeler and the neighbor's engineering representative , Geissler Engineering (Reference 6, Executive Summary and Groundwater Hydrology sections), concurred with the recommended design groundwater level of 12 feet below existing grade. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely ENGEO Incorporated Scott Johns, PE rhb/sj/jk/dt Attachment: Selected References SUBJECT TO ATIORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT SELECTED REFERENCES 1. AMEC; Peer Review -Geotechnical Exploration Repo1i; 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, Ca!lfornia; November4, 2015. AMEC Project No. 0084491960. 2. AMEC Foster Wheeler; Geotechnical Peer Review; 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California; April 28, 2017. AMEC Project No. 084491960. 3. ENGEO; Geotechnical Exploration; 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California; July 17, 2015 (Revised Aug ust 13, 2015). ENGEO Project No. 12175.000.000. 4. ENGEO; Response to AMEC Foster Wheeler Peer Review Comments; 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, C'..alifornia; January 11, 2016. ENGEO Project No. 12175.000.000. 5. ENGEO; Supplemental Response to Public Comments; 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California; April 19, 2017. ENGEO Project No. 12175.000.000. 6. Geissler Engineering; Hydrology Report; 401-409 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, California, 95032; dated March 31, 2017 SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY DIRECTION -ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT 12175.000.000 November 6, 2017 This Page Intentionally Left Blank L ACQ!)lSITIONS Rl:AL F'\T·\'I f DFVH01'MENT November 17, 2017 Ms. Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 9503~ Phone:(408)354-6872 Email: jarmer@losgatosca.gov RE: 405 Alberto Way. Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 APN 529-23-018 Dear Ms. Armer: Pursuant to your email request of November 14 concerning the revised application submittal which is attached to this letter, attached is a copy of the Hexagon Project Trip Generation table, dated November 15, 2017 as well as the KLA Landscape Architecture Tree Sizes letter, dated November 16, 2017. If you are in need offurther information or assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Shane Arters Attachments: Jennifer Armer November 14 email, Hexagon Project Trip Generation, and KLA Landscape Architecture cc: Randy Lamb Dan Kirby Jolie Houston Alicia Guerra Gary Black Ollie Zhou Uri Eliahu Bob Boeche 535 Middlefield Road. '.iulte 190, Menlo Park, CA 94·J25 650 326.1600 EXHIBIT 1 0 Shane Arters . From: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 11:39 AM Shane Arters To: Cc: Randy Lamb; Guerra, Alicia Subject: RE: 405 Alberto Way Planning Application Hi Shane, Randy, and Alicia, I have completed my initial review and I have the following requests .. Please provide the following: 1. Revised traffic generation numbers: The information provided in your letter states that the trips would be reduced, but my notes from the Town Council meeting include a request for revised numbers of what the trips would be for this reduced size building. I hope to have those numbers in enough time to get them peer reviewed since this is such a sensitive issue. 2. Increase in tree size details: From my side by side review of the current plan set and the previous plan set it is not obvious to me that there has been an increase in tree sizes. Most of the trees along the street are proposed to be 36-inch box, but that was in the previous plan set as well. Would it be possible to provide some additional description of where the landscaping plant/tree sizes have been increased, or in what way the overall plan is using larger plants? Thank you again for your responsiveness so far. I hope we can continue to move this forward quickly to get a decision for you and the neighbors. Sincerely, Jennifer Alli~"-· Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP • Associate Planner 1)~, Co mmunity Devel op.me nt Department o 110 E. M ai n Street , Lo s Gatos CA 95030 ~-Ph : 408.399.5706 '> 1armer@losgatosca.gov www.losgatosca.gov e https:l/www.facebook.com/losgatosca Community Development Counter Hours: 8 :00 AM -1:00 PM, Monday-Friday Please note the upcoming Town closure: November 23 & 24 -Th anksgiving Holiday This e-mail is intended only for the use of the indivi dual(s) nam ed In this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribut ion or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibi ted; If you have received th is communicati on i n error, please immedi ately notify us at the above e-mail address . ~ Think Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Table 1 -Project Trip Generation crediting driveway counts IPropoeed Project cP> Original Design Studied In TIA 93.5 ksf 11.03 1,031 1.94 159 22 181 1.96 31 152 183 2nd Redesign 82.0 ksf 11.03 904 1.99 143 20 163 2 .07 29 141 170 3rd Redelsgn 74.3 ksf 11.03 820 2 .03 133 18 151 2.18 28 134 162 iettng Site Drlwway Co&mta (E) 2 Office 30.0 ksf 11.03 331 29 13 42 34 47 81 Net Project Trip GaMratton (Net :a P • E) Original Design Studied in TIA 93.5 ksf 700 130 9 139 (3) 105 102 2nd Redesign 82 .0 ksf 573 114 7 121 (5) 94 89 3rd Redeisgn 74.3 ksf 489 104 5 109 (6) 87 81 Notes: All rates are from : Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition 1. Land Use Code 710: General Office Building (averag rates for daily trips, fitted curve equation for peak hour trips, expressed In trips per 1,000 s.f.) 2. Existing site driveway counts are based on driveway counts conducted on May 5, 2015 during both the AM {7-9 AM) and PM (4-6 PM) peak hours of commute traffic. Daily trips are estimated for existing office use using the daily trip generation rate for General Office Building {average rates, expressed in trips per 1,000 s.f.) LANDSCAPE ~CH!T.iCTUJte .. ---·--PLANNING Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Attn: Jennifer T.C. Armer, AICP 11 0 E. Main Street Los Ga'.tos, CA 95030 Re: 405 Alberto Way November 16, 2017 The landscape plans for the proposed office project at 405 Alberto Way have been re\<ised to upsize the installation size of trees. We have also revised some of the species since the plans were last reviewed by the Town of Los Gatos. The trees were already sized quite large with the original submittal -most of the trees were specified to be installed at 36" box size. Following are the modifications that have been made to the landscape plans and can be found on sheet L0 .6. 1. The site has been modified to address the community and Town Council direction. A dog park was added on the north side of the site, the entry courtyard has been modified, and the parking lot at the southeast corner of the site was revised to allow for an amenity space in that comer. The modification of the site required changes to the tree layout, species, and installation sizes . 2 . All nine of the street trees in the parkway strip along Alberto Way have been changed from October Glory Maple (Acer) to Fern Pine (Podocarpus) and have been up-sized from 36" box to 48" box. (Fern 'Pines' are not really pines, just the name, they are v ery clean broadleaf evergreen shade.istreet trees that have great branch structure with really nice contrast between the smooth bark and fine textured leaves). 3. The small trees and bamboo that were originally specified have been revised to flowering cherries (Prunus) and have been up-sized. Two different species of predominately white-flowering cherries replaced the previously specified bamboo (in the courtyard) and Crape Myrtles (at the driveway entries). Additionally, white flowering cherries have been added to the southeast comer of the site (comer of Alberto Way and Los Gatos -Sarato ga Road). 15 15-gallon bamboos have been replaced with 15 24" box Snow Goose Cherries and 10 24"-box Crape Myrtles have been replaced with 11 30"-box Akebono Cherries. 4. A 36" box size Fem Pine (Podocarpus) was added on the north side of the site at the dog park entry. I hope that this helps to clarify the modifications that were made to the plans to respond to the comments by the community and the Town Council. Thank y ou, Tom Holloway, ASLA, KLA, Inc. CLA#3589 Page 1 March 17,2017 Ms. Jennifer Armer Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 405 Alberto Way Dear Jennifer: ARClilTECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN I reviewed the revised project about a month ago and made a nwnbcr of recommendations. The applicant has imple- ment.ed some of the recommendations, but not all. My comments on the new drawings provided last week a.re as fol- lows: NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The site is located at the corner of Alberto Way and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, and is currently occupied by three office buiktings with office space located both below and above grade level. Photogmphs of the site and surrounding build- ings are shown on the following page. 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRC LE. SUITE 199. LARKSPUR CA . 94939 EXHIBIT 1 l TEL: 415.331.3795 CDCPLAN@PACBE LL.NET Existing site building at the Alberto Way Cor11 1•1 New one-story retail building across Alberto Way Adjacent residential development immediately north of the site 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments March 17, 2017 Page 2 f.\i,tm • iJ.1.JllJmg JI r:he center of the site fai·.t 1m• landscaping along the north edge ol r he site Adjacent residential development immediately across Alberto Way CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR Lr\NDING CIRCLE sum 199 LARKSPUR . CA -94939 405 Albcrw Wily Design Review Commcnu March 17, 2017 Pagc3 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES MADE TO THE PREVIOUS DESIGN APPROACH REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION The applicant has revised their design approach following direction from the Planning Commission at its public hear- ing on August 241h of last year. The Planning Commission direction included increasing the project's conformance with General Plan Policy LU-1.8 (designing in kecpmg with the small-town c:h2racter of Los Gatos), lessening the impact on the adjacent neighborhood and increasing the design's conformance with the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines, especially Section 1 .4 Community Expectations. The applicant's proposed changes reviewed in February included the following: • A reduction in the overall gross building area. ~ A consolidation of the original two buildings into a single structure. • A reduction in the structure's overall building height by live feet. • Elimination of the tower clements. • A decrease in the size of second story windows. • An increased setback from the north property line. • An increased setback of the building from Alberto Way near the Los Gatos-Saratoga Road intersection. • An increase of surface parking spaces along the full length of the Alberto Way fronage. A comparison of the previous and current site plans is shown below. Previous Site Plan Currently Proposed Site Plan FEBRUARY CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In preparing the current design approach, the applicant has Wgcly retained many of the previous elevation forms and details while incorporating the changes outlined above. I stated in the February review letter that I believed it may be rather difficult to achieve a desired small-town Los Gatos scale and appearance when starting with a large building and making small changes to it. A satisfactory solution might be more easily achievable by starting the design with the goal of creating multiple structures with smaller scale modules and details set within a landscaped site framework. While the changes noted above have reduced several aspects of the project's perceived size, the project that I reviewed in February still in many ways read as a single large building. Concerns included the following. 1. The project seemed to read as one large office building without a breakdown in scale .telated to the neighborhood or the Los Gatos existing small town scale. 2. The building clements appeared very much as boxes with some mansard roof attachments -an approach speci.fi- cally discouraged on page 8 of the guidelines within the Co11111111ni'!J ExpedationJ section (next to last bullet point). 3. The design did not have the "Careful attention to architectural ... detail similar to the Town's residential architec- ture" (Community Expectations page 7). CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 LARKSPUR CA . 94939 405 Alberto Way Design Review Co!!Unen ts Mardil7,2017 Pagc4 Reads as boxes with add-on elements which Is not consistent Flat wall taller than side masses with the Commercial Design Guidelines I I Is not working well as a linking feature I .,,,. Identified February Concerns That said, I did acknowledge that I undentood the applicant's desire to provide Class A office space \\ith latge floor plates to accommodate a .range of tenant size. I noted that should staff and the Planning Commission choose to accept the applicant's chosen site plan and floor plate direction, I did have a few recommendations, as shown below and on the following page, to assist in reducing the visual mass and scale of the building. Larger, partial elevations are shown on the following page for more detail. Major change elements shown on the elevation recommendations included the following: 1. Providing more visual variety and break up in scale for the building located closest to Alberto Way. • Providing fust and second floor recesses and roof breaks to reduce the boxiness of the structure and break up the current single bulk mass of the structure. • Increasing the mansard roof height for the portion of the building closest to the intersection. Increasing the amount of projection for the elevation pop outs at the fust floor. • Providing more of a wall plane offset where the two-story front wall transitions to a one-story wall. 2. Reducing the visual mass of the central link of the setback portion of the building. • Lowering the height of the current 5' -6" parapet. • Adding a significant projecting cornice canopy to match the adjacent mansard roof eave lines. Adding brackets at the cornice canopy to add architectural detail. C tilizing a cooler wall color for the set back wall to distinguish it from the other walls and reduce the feeling of one latge building. • Providing some subtle enhancement to the visual prominence of the main building entry. 3. Adding more architectural detail. Shown on the study are two different types of trellis canopies. There is always a tend.ency to do uniform trellises, but in seeking a less formal approach to relate to the smaller scale of the residen- tial development, I believe that increased variety would be more successful. FEBRUARY RECOMMENDED ALBERTO WAY ELEVATION CHANGES CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARK SP UR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 LARKSPUR . CA , 94939 405 Albcno Way Design Review Comments March 17, 2017 ~ 5 I did also note that the placement of surface parking along the entire Albcno Way frontage was not consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines. However, given the concerns expressed about the loss of available multi-use parking at this site, I stated that I bdievcd that surface parking in this location could be useful and acceptable. Increasing amount of projection would be deslrable More wall plane offset here would be desirable Type 1 trellis canopies I m~ood CJft for IMgM 1.t Md Jnd flOOr Cllmblfll .,,,.. WOflld be..,,,,,. FEBRUARY Al.BERTO WAY ELEVATION RECOMMENDAllONS: LEFT HALF FEBRUARY ALBERTO WAY ELEVATION RECOMMENDAllONS: RIGHT HALF CANNON DESIGN CROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 LARKSPUR . CA • 94939 405 Alberro Way Oaign Review Co:rnmcnu March 17, 2017 Page 6 REVISED CURRENT DESIGN CONCERNS ANO ISSUES The original design reviewed by the Planning Commission in August, the previous design that I revi~d in February and the currently proposed design are shown in the Alberto Way sketches and elevations below. Reviewed by the Planning Commission in August Prevlous Alberto Way ElevaUon : Reviewed by the Planning Commlssron Currently Proposed Alberto Way Elevation I IF"Fl'~--'~--;;;;~g~:r::~~~r 1 CANNON DfSIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCl.E. SUITE 199 LARKSPUR. CA . 949 :~9 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comments March 17, 2017 Page 7 The additional changes to the design in response to the recommendations contained in the February review and .recom- mendations letter include the following: • The mansard .roof height at the portion of the building closest to the Alberto Way /Los Gatos-Saratoga Road inter- section was increased in height, but not as much as shown on the .recommendations .illustration. • The ground .floor pop outs and wall plane offset adjacent to Alberto Way were both increased 8 inches in depth. • Some trellis and sunshade elements were added, but only on the Alberto Way elevation. • The central building link parapet was lowered. • The color of the central building link was modified. • A projecting cornice canopy with brackets was added to the central building link. One change made that I feel was counter productive to a decrease in the building scale is the increased height of the building entry element. I feel that the lower entry originally proposed with the minor changes recommended in the Feb.,. rua.ry review letter would be mote in the spirit of the Planning Commission's direction to the applicant. I am also unsw:e whether the trellises and canopies that have been added will be signjficant enough to add sufficient smaller scale detail clements to the facade. It would be helpful for the applicant to provide photo examples showing the proposed materials and construction of these elements. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission will need to determine if the changes summarized above are sufficient to satisfy th~ direc- tion to the applicant which I understood to include the following: • The Planning Commi;sion §IJll speafic dinctio11 to the applicant to signiftcant!J mlNa the size of the bNilding in height, ma.rr and floor IJl'ta. • The Planni11g Co111111iuion lJllll JjJldftc dirrdin to the applitanf to rrvi11 the proporlli t/e.rilJI to b1 "'°" in leuping wilh th1 111ighbor- hood and J111ail to11111 rharacter. Speaftc .fllggtJtWIU inclNrkd: 1. Mo11i11gpropo1ed 405 bllildi11g flW'!J from the mirk11tial tuighbors 2. &ducing the sea/I (h1ight, lllM.f aJ1d length) of th1 Albmo W '!Y fa;ad1 of tlN 401 bllilding, with additional 11r:o11d floor arliada- tion 3. Not blackmg the view of 11101111tains from tuighbors 4. Change r!Jfl of proposed bNildingr to be "'""similar to neighborhood archif«tNral rtJll 5. Inmased ea11far111aJ1&e 1lliJh Co111111mial DesilJI GNirklilles, spe,;iftcal!J: S tdW11 1.4 Co111f111111itj Bxptctatio111: a. Careflll alf111tio11 to arrhilldNral and kmtkttzpe rktail.r siailar to the Town} roidential sfnK/llrr.t. b. The smsilive intltfaa of tommmial dnelop111ent with adjamit mirknlial nei1,hborboods. c. Scale amJ character appropriate to the setting. 6. Inma.fld tolljof"lllance with General Pkm Po/ims: a. Poli!] LU-1.8: Co111111m:ial d1velop111t11t of any typ1 (of!iee, rrtai/, rmarrh a11d d1r11lop111111t, 1k.) shaU b1 rksioud in kelping with the mall-to11111 chartKter of Los Gakl.r. b. Policy LU~.5: The MJe, rkn.rity, and itrtmi!J of new kmd 111e shall be t:r111si.rlent with that of th1 illlmediate neighborhood. Should the Planning Commission conclude that the changes meet their concems, I would suggest that they consider the following changes made in the February review letter. • Increase the roof height more at the building portion closet to the Alberto Way /Los Gatos-Saratoga Road intersec- tion. • Add additional building articulation to the wall and roof articulation as or similar to the recommendation made in February. • Lower the height of the entry element and conform to the height and continuous cornice canopy recommendations in the February review lettci:. • Direct staff to review the material and scale of the proposed trellis and sunshade canopy elements. • Withhold approval for the color of the centnl link until staff has viewed and evaluated the color choices as painted as sample swatches on the completed building walls. CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 LARKSPUR. CA 94939 405 Alberto Way Design Review Comrnenu March 17, 2017 Page 8 Jennifer, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address. Sincerely, CM'NON DESIGN GROuP Larry L. Cannon CANNON DES IGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR 1.1\ND IN G CI RCLE SU ITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA , 94939 10111210New ADA curb ramps.Remove and replace pavement section.112” grind and overlay.12Relocate pedestrian crosswalk. Add high-visibility crosswalk stripes, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, yield line or appropriate signage, etc., with approval from Caltrans.EXHIBIT 1 Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: RE : 401-405 Alberto Way Project Dear Jennifer, Jorge Pelon <jorgepelon@yahoo.com> Tuesday , October 03, 2017 12 :36 PM Jennifer Armer Alberto Way Project-IMPORTANT PLEASE READ! I am a resident at Los Gatos Commons (a senior living condo community) at 439 Alberto Way. I have MANY SERIOUS CONCERNS about the 401-405 Alberto Way Project. The location of this big project is at the head of a dead end small street (one way in and out). This small street contains VERY HIGH DENSITY housing, full of condo complexes, a large motel and a restaurant. I challenge you to find a dead end street in Los Gatos that has a higher density population than is present on Alberto Way. My senior housing condo complex alone contains 110 units. The size and density of the proposed project is ridiculously inappropriate for a small roadway called "Way", not boulevard or street. This project would be more appropriate on Los Gatos Blvd , NOT little Alberto Way. The congestion and pollution this project will create for the local residents is exorbitant. We will be TRAPPED during construction and afterwards. Before this (401-405 Alberto Way) location had a surface level parking lot that was more than adequate, now the developers are proposing a 2 level underground parking structure, besides surface level parking. This is indicative of the absurd degree of increased density. I am in my late sixties and suffer from respiratory conditions. The amount of pollution produced by the demo and construction phase will greatly compromise my hei:llth and quality of life. I am a working professional and punctuality is essential for my practice. The added congestion will be extremely in convenient for me to get to work. Alberto Way has been a wonderful place to live, PLEASE don't allow these GREEDY land developers to greatly deter mentally affect the quality of life for the local residents. They don't have to live here, they take their money and run. This proposed project as it stands will forever ruin the charm and beauty of this part of Los Gatos. I have absolutely no issues with renovating the old location, but PLEASE help preserve the specialness of our town and PLEASE force the developers to reduce the scope and density of their project to be similar to what was their before. This is a desperate plea for justice and humanity! Sincerely, Jorge Pelon Sent from my iPad EXHIBIT 13 Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Michael Dern <mdern@dern-ad.com> Tuesday, October 03, 2017 6:49 PM voiceheard@401albertoway.com Please approve 405 Alberto Way As a local architect and resident of Los Gatos, I support the project! Sincerely, Michael Michael Dern, AIA Principal DERN Architecture + Development (415) 307-1283 mdern@dern-ad.com www.dern-ad.com Jennifer Armer On Oct 4, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Denny Alff <dennyalff@comcast.net> wrote: Dear Council Members, As we watched you last night at the Town Council meeting, we so hoped that you saw us, a group of green name tagged neighbors, anxious, concerned, and downright scared about our neighborhood's future . We just want our precious homes to be protected. We walk in the neighborhood, visit with each other, sitting on benches in our courtyards. We are just so thankful for the fresh air and quiet environment (in spite of proximity to hiway 17), and ---grateful for our homes, neighborhood, friends, our quality of life, and a town that has always protected us. We most sincerely ask that you will help us to continue having all that we now have . I was surprised that all conversation last night was focused on the new building's details to possibly make it less bulky and less ugly. I thought the vote was to be a more general decision on whether the new building (even modified) should even be built vs not building it. Could the 405 Alberto developer simply take his noise, his workers' trucks being parked everywhere, his air pollution while tearing down buildings, all his dug out parking spaces and his probably ineffective shuttle service and genera l neighborhood wrecking elsewhere? Could you please just send him off to terrorize another neighborhood, not ours? It would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks for reading this and cons i dering our concerns . We are truly appreciative of your considerable efforts to make the proper decision. Regards, Denny Alff Los Gatos Commons Sent from my iPhone ........ October 18, 2017 Honorable Members of the Los Gatos Town Council and Planning Commission c/o Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: Redevelopment of the Los Gatos Lodge Property Dear Members of the Los Gatos Town Council and Planning Commission: RECEJVED OCT 2 8 2017 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION As you might be aware, we are the owner and operator for the past 23 years of the Los Gatos Lodge which is situated on 8+ acres of property at 50 Saratoga Avenue in the Town of Los Gatos . During our ownership, we have operated the hotel, restaurant and related banquet facil ~ties to the highest standards and have renovated the rooms, common area and banquet fac!lities several times. We consider ourselves part of the community and have always appreciated our working relationship with the Town of Los Gatos and the efforts of your public service to maintain the standards that make Los Gatos a special place . During the past several years while the project at 401-409 Alberto Way has been under consideration for intensifying the office development on the site, we have been contacted on . several occasions by the optionee (project applicant} of the site and by many of the citizens involved in the discussion surrounding the project. It is our practice not to comment on other proponent's projects unless there Is some direct negative impact to our property; therefore, we have reme1ined silent. Recently, the 401.-409 Alberto Way project was appealed to the Town Council and remanded back to the Pianning Commission tor additional review and project modification . During several of the Town Council and Planning Commission meetings involving this project, there were specific comments made about the redevelopment of the Los Gatos lodge property given its low i ntensity of development (.13 or less FAR) when compared with the proposed Alberto Way office proposal with an FAR of .90+. Based upon those comments, we received an increase amount of inquiries from several community members about the future for the redevelopment of the Los Gatos Lodge property. Our priority continues to be operating the existing business as we have for the past 23 years; however, it is apparent from the community interest in the Los Gatos Lodge property and testimony observed during several public hearings, that the community needs have Town of Los Gatos October 1.8, 2017 Page 2 changed over the years . Since the Town is reviewing the Alberto Way project, perhaps it is time to consider the broader needs of the community a nd what woui d be best suited to occupy the Los Gatos lodge property in the future. As you continue your review on the 401-490 Alberto Way project, we enco urage you to envisio n the future of that intersection with something other than the Los Gatos Lodge that satisfies a need in the community. We are always available to discuss this further, but wm only pursue redevelopment of the site into something that the community supports and benefits from being redeve loped. Perhaps a broader discussion about this in relationship to the Town of Los Gatos' future goals and plans would be beneficial as our approach to redevelopment of a site will be significantly more considerate than what we have witnessed w ith the Atberto Way project. We would encourage you to identify a planner to review with us opportunities for this site. I hope this letter is helpful in communicating our response to the many fnquiries received about redevelopment of the property and you have our commitment that the existing hotel will continue to be operated until a project worthy of consideration and support by tile community is warranted. Should you wish to d iscuss this further, you are welcome to call our property representative David Bugatto at (916) 648-7718. Thank you for your service and continued efforts to further improve the quality of life in the Town of Los Gatos. Sincerely, Keet Nerhan Los Gatos Lodge LLC Cc : Jennifer Armer David J. Bugatto ~!Paulson Laurel Prevetti Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Better .... but still too BIG!!! Mary Patterson <mmpmitzi@comcast.net> Wednesday, November 08, 2017 4:41 PM Jennifer Armer Alberto Jennifer Armer From: Cheryl Huddleston [mailto:chehud@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 4:36 PM To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: 401-409 Alberto Way-Revised Plans -Tentative PC Date 12/13/17 This is a way too big and way too dense of a project. Where is the open space? Where can the employees take a break, exercise, eat their lunch? Parking lots should not count as open space. Bigger frees are good but they need space also. Does the town have to guarantee a profit to all these developers that want to overbuild and overcrowd this town. Thank you, Cheryl and Stan Huddleston Jennifer Armer Attachments: IMG_2048jpg; IMG_2051jpg; IMG_E2049jpg From: Bonna Kauffman [mailto:bonnasue@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 7:51 PM To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Fw: 401-409 Alberto Way -Revised Plans -Tentative PC Date 12/13/17 Jennifer, the enclosed photos show just one construction vehicle parked on A l berto Way; this was parked here for about 2 days or so. You can see how it obstructs the flow of traffic on Alberto Way, and how dangerous it could be . ANd this is just one truck; and just the beginning ..... Thank you for your consideration, -Bonna Kauffman 109 T reseder Ct Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Jennifer, John <jomill@yahoo.com> Thursday, November 30, 201712:54 AM Jennifer Armer Alberto W ay Development Project I am a senior resident owner in the Los Gatos Commons development on Alberto way. I have been following the Alberto Way and Hwy 9 project proposal thus far from a distance but now feel I must make my voice heard . I actually grew up in Los Gatos back in the 60's so I've seen the changes over the decades to a wonderful little town. I realize some growth and change is inevitable over time, I am not a no growth hardliner, more for reasonable growth . I have been pleased that the growth and changes over the years have been kept in check as to not get too out of line and detract or destroy the "small town" atmosphere that has made Los Gatos such a great little town. I can see why the town might be interested in a project such as the Alberto Way commercial building for the future revenue . The building size is not unreasonable for a two story office building, but it simply does not belong in that location . As you know there is already a large commercial office complex at the end of Alberto way. At least it is hidden in the trees an up against the freeway. It is barely noticeable and does not block any residents views in the area. That complex already adds a significant amount of traffic in and out of Alberto Way and I'm not even sure if that office complex is 100% occupied . The new proposed office building will add far too much traffic to that area . I just think the new Alberto Way/Hwy9 office building is more suited to an area like Winchester Blvd and Lark Ave areas where there are already a bunch of larger office buildings. Shouldn't the planners be encouraging workplace development closer to public transit VT A light rail as is being done throughout other cities in Santa Clara valley? It seems counter-intuitive to me to put a large office building at Alberto Way which is more residential (both on Alberto way and surrounding areas right up on Los Gatos Blvd and beyond .) I thin the new office building is too tall for this location. A one story building would be OK. But the massive 2 story building will just block views of the mountains which residents in Los Gatos are so blessed to have right in front of them : In other words, we don't want our neighborhood to start looking like the dense neighborhoods of San Jose, Santa Clara etc., where you only see sides of big buildings everywhere you look instead of the surrounding hills. A building misplaced like this just chips away at the quality of life in this area of Los Gatos. I implore you to reconsider the location of such a large building or dramatically reduce the size (one story) to fit into the existing neighborhood. The area can be modernized and updated without ruining it forever. Regards, John Miller 453 Alberto Way Planning Commission Los Gatos, CA December 4, 2017 Dear Commission Members, I am writing to give you an assessment of how seniors at The Commons have been and will be affected by the developer's application process, the community meetings, the hearings, and the developer's publicity about the 405 Alberto Way project. I do this from a professional perspective. I have a Ph. D. in Cultural Anthropology and worked for 30 years as a professor and researcher. One of my areas of expertise is the anthropology of aging. My publications include an article in Journal of Cross Cultural Gerontology and a book, Husbands and Wives (2010) that analyzes changes over time in the cultural and social organization of the aged. For my research I received 3 research grants from the National Institute on Aging, a grant from the Sandoz Foundation for Gerontological Research, and a postdoctoral fellowship from the National Institute of Mental Health. My work and teaching has examined how changes in physical, economic, social, political and religious circumstances affect the elderly and how and why they respond as they do. I live at The Commons and have observed the impact of the proposed development on the seniors and their struggle to get it reduced in size. CEQA Sec. 15131 reads that social effects may be used to determine the significance of physical changes caused by a project. So if construction affects a 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. In my opinion, the proposed huge building at 405 Alberto Way, the two-level underground garage, and the increased traffic, as well as the developer's attitude toward the senior community, will have a negative impact on the senior population at The Commons. In fact, it has already begun to do so. How so? In four respects. First, the sense of self worth of the members of the Commons community is challenged. I lived at the Commons before and after the proposed project was a possibility. Now, I often hear comments that the developer thinks "we don't count"; "we don't matter;" "we helped build this town; are we going to be discarded?" After the developer distributed his brochure, I hear "Are we going to be thrown under the shuttle bus?" The developer encouraged these feelings by telling individuals at community meetings that he did not care about the residents, only the building. Second, seniors are beginning to doubt that they can remain independent, especially when it comes to driving themselves around town to their appointments and shopping. I hear "How am 1 going to get to my doctor appointments on time?" "Will my therapist be able to get through the traffic to make her appointment with me?" "Can I still drive myself if the traffic gets worse?" Third, seniors are beginning to become uneasy about maintaining social connectivity, again because of fear of traffic congestion and speeding drivers trying to get through the intersections and onto ramps to highway 17. People say to each other, "Can I get my grandchildren to school or ball practice on time? I don't want to let my family down." "Can I be on time for exercise class or my club meeting?" "Maybe I won't try it if the traffic on the street gets bad." Fourth, the residents of The Commons are beginning to worry about their safety if they continue to walk up the street to the intersection. And they especially worry about their financial independence. "Will I be able to take care of myself if the value of my property declines" or if "the problems that can come from an underground garage (broken pipes expensive to fix) occur''? "What will happen to me if I need to sell my unit and it is hard to sell because of the construction mess or, later, all the traffic"? When I moved here about 4 years ago, I heard stories, humorous anecdotes, laughter, helpful advice, and so on-a positive, happy community here at The Commons. So it is disturbing to hear this shift in attitude. Are these fears realistic? I think so. If the developer is allowed to build this 74,260 s.f. building and 2 story underground garage in defiance of the Planning Commission and the residents, the feelings of humiliation and sadness will intensify. If the 298 plus cars, on top of the 100 cars coming to and from 475 and 485 Alberto Way, cause the delays that are expected, the seniors' trips to take care of business or visit friends and family will be relegated to the times of day when traffic is light. They will be more isolated than they are during the beach traffic on the weekends. A decline in physical activity is quite possible if seniors are reluctant to walk across the busy driveways of the proposed building. Financial insecurity is a reality for people in their 70s and above. If it becomes necessary to move to a memory unit or assisted living, most people at the Commons would rely on their nest egg, their unit-where most of their savings went. If the value of these properties falls or if it becomes more difficult to sell the units because of construction or the deterioration of the quiet, low traffic, small town character of Alberto Way, it could be harder to afford a new residence somewhere else where there is professional help. Alberto Way is heavily populated by seniors-about 170 live here (half of the adult population). In my opinion, if the developer succeeds in getting approval for this huge, over 73,000 s.f. building with all its associated traffic, this change will be detrimental to individual seniors and to the senior community at The Commons. 1 urge you not to allow this to happen. Sincerely, Loretta Fowler, Ph. D. Professor Emerita of Anthropology Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: To The Planning Commission; Joan K Larson <joanklarson@aol.com> Tuesday, December 05, 2017 1:02 PM Jennifer Armer 401-409 Alberto Way This email is in regard to the safety for the residents on Alberto Way. My point being that the road is just too narrow for the size of the project that has been proposed. So many times has the on coming traffic been over the yellow line when there are parked cars along the curb. With trucks it is worse. There needs to be a traffic study done on the SAME SIZE BUILDING with the SAME TYPE OF LOCATION. A dead end curving narrow road with only one ingress/egress. There is NO alternative for the residents if road is blocked. Especially in case of emergency. How will Alberto Way be zoned so that the street parking can be held for neighboring residents? The reduction of the size of the proposed building is NOT enough. A two story underground garage is still too many cars on an already busy road and intersection. Besides the residents, the offices at 475 Alberto Way has an estimate of 100 additional cars. Thank you for attention to this matter. Joan Larson 441 Alberto Way #114 ·Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-348-6698 Sent from my iPhone Jennifer Armer From: Sent To: Subject: Attachments: CONNIE <cgdailey@comcast.net> Tuesday, December OS , 2017 4:45 PM Jennifer Armer RE: 401-409 Alberto Way Public Hearting.docx Public Hearting/Planning Commission December 13, 201 7 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 given 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. This project is not a good idea for this location and will not be beneficial to the town of Los Gatos. George S . Dailey 441 Alberto Way #111 Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-827-4956 cgdailey@comcast.net Gerald E. and Sondra T. Hamilton 451 Alberto Way, 0153 December 7, 2017 Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner For The Attention of: Los Gatos, CA 95032 ghamilton29@gmail.com 972-890-4772 Mary Badame, Kendra Burch, Melanie Hanssen, D. Michael Kane Matthew Hudes, Thomas O'Donnell and Kathryn Janoff LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS 110 E. MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CA 95030 Re: 401-409 ALBERTO WAY Dear Jennifer and Each/All Planning Commission Members: We have not communicated with you Planning Commission Members before, only to and with Jennifer Armer and each of the Council members on this extremely consequential matter of the proposed office project on our above tiny street. We want you to know that my wife and I ARE and have been residents and owners within the Senior Citizens condominium project commonly known as "Los Gatos Commons", the outstanding development consisting of some 100 units and on-site parking for some 140 autos plus 9 guests. It is to be noteds our community does NOT complicate the dally/nightly parking on Alberto Way, which, by the way on one recent Saturday night (11/18/17), had 54 cars parked on the easterly side and 12 on the westerly side of our street! Only one or two additional cars could have been accommodated. MOST of these vehicles depart out of Alberto Way each morning. A terrific number of vehicles still ENTER our street BEFORE any new office or other structure replaces the now totally vacated office buildings on 401-409 Alberto Way! When there Is the above number of vehicles on the street, you need to think about the narrowness for the traffic flow from the northerly end of Alberto Way to the intersection of Hwy 9 to even IMAGINE the congestion of this intersection when some 300 additional vehicles might be entering and existing Alberto Way, IF such a huge office building was to be constructed as currently proposed. A large number of offsite vehicles would also be generated and just where would THEY be accommodated? Please keep in mind also; there is NO, absolutely NO public rights of way for turn arounds of cars finding no parking, except perhaps at the entrance to the existing office building at the northerly end of Alberto Way! All other driveways to the existing residential developments are PRIVATE rights of way! This could create a considerable problem, without doubt! Jennifer Armer All Planning Commission Members GEH Letter dated December 7, 2017 Page Two Most all of us who object to the proposed development predicate our position on the incredible and excess SIZE of the proposed office building AND the numbers of parking of vehicles required by zoning relative thereto. The formerly occupied and existing office buildings ONLY contained about 36,000 square feet. To even TRY to imagine a building/s containing over TWICE as many square feet and double the amount of on-site parking is hardly conceivable. Quite wisely and appropriately, you Planning Commission Members took all of the above and more into your deliberations on the then proposed 84,000 +/·structures! We applauded your decision and were very hopeful that the Town Council would support your decision, but obviously discouraged when they did NOT! However it DID wisely remand the matter back to you for reconsideration. Sondra and I have attempted to correlate the above factors to one key statement made by the proposed developer, but it just does NOT compute! He said in one of his documents "Our commitment to quality e;:tends into neighborhoods where we work side-by-side with our neighbors". It is supportable fact that this developer has almost totally ignored most all input and recommendations from the neighborhood. He has little or NO concern as to the impact of such huge building/s will have on all aspects of the life of the residents not ONLY on Alberto Way, but downtown Los Gatos, where there is a serious lack of adequate parking for the general population of not only the Town, but for visitors to the stores and restaurants in the downtown area that are in such need of parking to survive. · We believe the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission and the Council MUST evaluate whether or not the traffic congestion created by the proposed office building and its required parking has been grossly underestimated! It will impact not only Alberto Way, but also Hwy 9, the four on-and-off ramps to and from Highway 17 and the entire downtown Los Gatos community by way of east-west traffic on Hwy 9! I just know you each and all of you know and have experienced the backup of vehicles southbound on Highway 17 from as far north as Hamilton Avenue, yes? It takes more than approximately 15 MINUTES for just THIS drive and THEN when one reaches the off ramps to Highway 9, it is really congested and one can hardly reach either Los Gatos Blvd. or University or Santa Cruz Avenues without considerable delay and backups! What will it be like when approximately 300 +/-additional cars attempt to reach, then attempt to go easterly on Highway 9 to travel to the signalized intersection of Alberto Way and all try to make a left turn so as to enter the new office building project????? Whoever, at the end of the last Town Council meeting, suggested that a 74,000+/-square foot building would be more appropriate on the subject site, has since tried to clarify his statement, but has no reasonable basis for his suggestion and there is NO support anywhere that we can determine for such a minimal size reduction. It appears to be nothing more than an off-the-cuff statement and should be Ignored! Jennifer Armer All Planning Commission Members GEH Letter dated December 7, 2017 Page Three We love our residential community as do most ALL of the current owners/occupants of all of the Individual projects on Alberto Way. It is unique but under siege by a developer that insists and must believe HIS design and size of the project FITS on this unique Avenue. IT DOES NOT and we respectfully request your deliberations concur and you again deny the currently modified and minimally reduced size and character of this development. Respectfully submitted . Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: From the Los Gatos Commons Lindsay Catterton <lcatte5850@aol.com> Wednesday, December 06, 2017 6:56 AM Jennifer Armer Alberto Way Mr Lamb's modifications are still not acceptable! Size was not reduced significantly and the traffic problems still exist!! What would happen if we had a wildfire and all had to get out at one time and had to contend with that amount of cars from that monstrosity as well? Please don't let him build that huge thing!!! Lindsay Catterton #lOSA the Los Gatos Commons Sent from my iPhone . I I I I lf o 1 -Lf (!> 5' A J b" r--1o ~ '114-/ of "7.e."1 f }e_~r-Jen»11j.a- . '/? S2. "./'°' r-J; ~'J YltR... C: ~o ve y ro _;'<~t lL1 t f-/i o._ J t if, R.. add~ -h a~t:t} ·-t<·t:z:f f '> a nf l/.fl...h1.;f e._ d rt~' 'ny n <!/ r ~ -f-a Ea..5-f-Lt>s G~-J\'! s o~ tf7 57 W ~~(f ha V~ Cl-.d1 :;cJ;~ vf-:f +Jh>IL -fry,..,_, J -Jr, ~SS f/w y 9 -r-h P Ur A J be Y'+o A.,,// a...y ,. ( e.-f-J. -f v r f) .. J ... a 111. o. S12-111'o~ !V--i-L~s G~'o...r G,Jl'Y" bN5 ThAnff/~3 ~au 01 .. '1~ ~ t-e._ } .Y RECEIVED ··ore Oo 2011 ~-~~ I TO~ OF LOS GATOS i Pl.ANNING DIVISION I Jennifer Armer From : Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Bob Burke <bobburkeat@gmail.com> Wednesday, December 06, 2017 6:40 PM Jennifer Armer Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson; Robert Schultz Alberto Way Citizens Opposition Petition to November 2017 Design for 405 Alberto Way Alberto Way Citizens Opposition Petition to Nov, 2017 405 Alberto Design 11.pdf; Palo Alto dewateri ng regulations. pdf; Ca ltra ns g u ide_p reparation_ t raffic_i m pact_ stud i es.pdf Attached to this e-mail is the petition, from the signatories and its written & graphic attachments: Request for Design Changes, Design Change Illustrations, Palo Alto's De-watering Regulations, Caltrans Traffic Study Methodology. Furthermore, it has come to our attention that in addition to the Cisco office footprint per employee we placed in the record in August 18, 2016, NETFLIX fits its employees into 60 square feet and Apple is moving 900 people into an SOK sq. ft. building in Fremont. Based on these and Town Engineer's omission of material fact in all hearing on this matter that Town Policy allows multiple study methods including Caltrans, San Jose and San Diego in addition to the ITE study method, we're requesting a new traffic study be done by the Town using the Caltrans study method and modern trip generation numbers based on between 60 and 100 sq ft per tenant employee. Regards, Bob Burke 408-896-7896 "Timely action combined with market knowledge creates excellence and value in the introduction of new technology ." Pet:it'ion to the Town of Los Gatos to DENY the November '2017 Design of he Application for P:roposed Development at 401-409 AIL3rto Wa r-=~:~~---G~=~~~!EE~~~:,~~~~~::~:~=m:::::::of l t~~~~~-~!~ea __ f~~ ____ J -~e~. the u~r~~~~~~ ~;~; ~~~~~ .. ~!J~~b wh~. ~r~ ~e-Pl~n'!~~ Boar~ a_~d: 1?~~~~Y-~~~-~~-~~~~~--~6,~--~i~~~=-~~!.~~· ..... : .. J f PrlB':d~ -~L-.~ zrt:~1~~11 ~j~~~~~i~-~~:7~;~:~~~.~-, K ! ~~~~~r:~-~:;;t~. --/.~-J~~~ ;;J: I . L \. r j / . ~ , . , '' I I 1 / .... ----· .. ..... . ······-· . .···· . ..... . . . ..:, . . .. -~". . , . . I ; I . .· ' l ) .. ... .. . I I I ! ( > l . ' -. . ~-·'. \ ! . I \ ; r" t' . I l . ' . . . II ( . -: ' • . . . . .. .. . I ..). !\·•\. 1 ... ·; 1~·,\; I I , I .Lr•~ .. (-~-J..){ ·\ .{._ 1 -IJ~. \...,)Jj \; f. '''/ /.(1 ._ h>'\>·~' .... \ f'.l'.· \,.·!l\ .. ._. 1 · ·.\·· IL '.l. ,·•j .. l 1 I · • • ,., · ----· ·-· ?-· . -·------1··---------· ----------· -· -·· · · 1. ~ -•\ ,:i _ _ --·----------. I / I .J-I I . ,.. I fl ( t ~ ~~ ' ;_i·-1 'i . I I I 1r;7· . (._._ c~_;.·u.:_ Jv·· _!1.L . _ .. · l..~-..1 ---~-! r 1-~ 1 tf : \Lif.. t• _ · ~ :l·K 1fj'lv )'. __ d,_L, ).: .... ·vh.t ' .. ~.-},_ .. ~ ' ,,... · '· ·j ':. . ....-........ -_:. ,,,.. .... / ." ~-. ). ...... . ·, ' :' r .: ·•tJ"·1 1 ,:·1 · . . . j: ...... ;.-i I \. »-l....., ~.,.__' . ~-. .-.. ,. -+ .; ,. .. _.···.;-!"._.. . .. ·If . ;, [. I ·1 . ' ' . '· '" r._f;,, \. 't" j; " 'l I :• / •. · 1 I ! i .... : .. ·-· .... .; 1' -~ ----~~-(~ -:_ ___ ..':'.::__<· ----~--' . _~:__-._ ... f f ~ : ,, ~-".,, \, ,_,,~.(... . ~ .-:!..."----·~-t' ~ , i I . _ t \~(\: ', \'-'-1. ("; '" , --(_::' _ . 0/--.-. -\ A..._ _<\\ \ ~ \ \ \:. "'' \,_ J ~ '~ -\',C<Ci i'\ <, I '"\ .• ; ~--<-: \ b-fl 4 j\ U .. {Yl l ~-'~ ' 1 I 'K.\ . I ... I . . ·. J ~-.. ·.·. '! . . ,.., . < ; -,\ l \ I . .. .. I' ~---\\ x_\'W.\ __ "-::~t.~tl, .. :\u -/~~::---.• L· ,.\.. .. -1.,..\-v ;\Vy::__t• H ..... ~ .. ~:~:}I·~-·-··----------__ -1-1 1-1 .i..;/1 r 1 •·· ( 1 ) (1 / 1 I ; -. · . '. · l ; I /I . . I /l. _! • • • • . J ' • •• . • . .· • I ' ' ~ • I > • " • I "--~·:.\ t·~·,J<r _.-~,/ ___ Lrtr . · :, 111 .. , ...... ::·:_>-~ ..... L ~~·-~·.:·:! R-'. ·\. ' · "1' l_\ .. Jd i ~ 1 : I . • J .' .~ ·1 ···i . . , . , . , ! . . ,-j . . , j I { t_,. \ ( \.. ~ { t { .. \ ; / .. ·-1 · '~, 1 · ·• · f r ' ~1 . · · ,. ... i ·· · I l ·~ · .-· J .-· ~·u·..f ... .;..~:"~L~!, ... ,·_ ... :. _,, .· ____ :~ .. ~.-." : ,~ .. ~-l-'>'<p· ... ~1 ... .,,. ~ . ..__ , .. f • ';. I ~{ _-~, · ... i~ -., .. :; ' .~. ·~· . . . . . ! ., ·, _ I .. . l ,.J t I . ·).. {_:--_:-.. L ...... ··. ~ . !'r'.:.: .. '• '' }· .J J···------.~.--~··'),'-·_, ........ :.'' .. :•·.,·.'·1 ,_:~:I.· \ ..... ·_ . .',.: __ ,.'_ .. .. ' . I L Ll I. ' I) ! I :iJ /; "} l . . · / . .S:~ ~-i.·f .. N~=-._1_11 __ ~_: )jl'•:J--· . . £ '1L c /l i_. pJ I ~ ••. : __ ·~7_·:'1 -~-_.~~.\.!.~!( h~~·~.'. l~j--1ql _/. ~<i~1 __ il(.!~ (? n I .. J -·· · i'i.-1/t n · J • · J , -.. ____ .. · ·.· ·, · vl !}~ t1.11c:,-)' h !i)i1-a /!1 17 .. -4 _ l 4 (fr ~ ~ ( I,(, '-'!ill { : ~ 5 b (j ,'~n_a '._Ii) !_~•J i1_«f!:__ /:!ff j/ /; .I \ ~fmltt't .r:...:...·1n I -~· ..... ·~·.i ... i ..:. ,._ r~ \I .:.>-· !u' ,_ ··t~; ;· -... ..... ~; '·· l )I ., .. ,. I .... I ...... :-r ... . ' ..,: I ~· \: ._, l __ , .'i ··;:. ·'-... ,, _,_ ·~· ,.·.-·· ··- .- ·" . .. _, ~ ~ .;,.... . ; ..... 1 i ,~_;·-;::;_;~. --~·t /.,.,. ... _ ~I -~ ' ... i . • I ---. -: ' y . J -·------.----··=~-!----i---~: ... ---.A....'.--f': .. ~ -·- .... :; : _, )· ~--.... 'J. -~.' \.j -·-·---.-----'!'-(=-...... .·~1 r '.:.i : -- r ·; ·~: •.• 1 ~---I ...... f·· :,---" ; _,...,....·: ~-' . . I / •I 'Ji ...... · .. ~ .... ~~ '<:, :.. ! -· ~·. ~ .--..J ..... l ' ! ... . r-....._ . -~ ~i "'· ·.:' ~--; : ~· v, ·~"" ~' ~: ~= ~::t i J... ·- "J"'-i i ' p " •• ! ...... : , ~ i ,_ ! ~-i -, i ! -.r-i ~l ;...\..L ,1_ -7 .. ., .· . fJ •. c:-.. ' ; . I ''""· '· ~ ~ i · .... J., ; I ....... S! ..> .~ . . ,. :'~ ... ' ~o.J I ~I .. .,.:;:, ! ).<_ -· .. I ~ ! :.; I l \: .. ~··· ...... ~· . --· ., \ ... ... ........ -r =' .. --!~'-. ,.....,! ! ·~-;--~__;...~~·;:;. . -... -...... ._. .... ,--·----., ·-·._ . ..,,·,. ~:.;;~ .... . ' -~~-i -,-.. ~.~!· -..!. ~----~ .. ' ' ....... ,,,/ -~~-.1 ._ --· · ...... -. · .. -·~ -' ......... -. = i -~· ._ .... .- ., ,; --- ·-..... -- "; : .. ·~ !"• ~- J -" ·""-' '· ... ~ . . •. ~<'-- ·,, ~:..":': '-·. _, ....... - ! .J -·· ~., -·--· .... .))----·- : .. > _.> •t.\. I' ,-~ ) .... _ ......... .i \. ' r ___ ...._ __ -:-+--. _:;:_·-~------ \\ .. ~-_-__ ) ... •'I .! ... ": -j ,;, . i ·,.,_ ·-" - , .·--.... · ' ., -··""' ·: -r----·- .>j ;.:,-· • r-...... .. -... :> ---~+ l ' ! ,. (._ ', >-J I-,.) .. ... ~; : -.. --"; -~-· . ·~.1. ·. ·-r -·· -. > _ ...... - ~·· ... -· ·~ ...... --... ·--. -.. --...) _-;E. l ·=·. ~ "",.:·· ... ''( ::.. i ----. _::;.: ' "-<" ' ·.:..!:--::J l -~; . . : ~· --r,..: -·-v ' ..._,__. -..:.) ' /-,~..l.­ <.'r-' .:.: £.,_} .... ..J. ~· '-'.; :'-,· ·~~-::_ ~ :·~ i . .; ,...._ \,.; ::: .J ·•:I ,,· . I ,j -. ~- -..,;.,) '""l -'"I ....... ~ ,, -. ....,. ... '. . . ... ' ... 1 .! . ' ·-··-"'~ ,,"-~t .. . -~ .. ! ... ..; i . : . :; I ' -~ l ~·•I '· 1 I l I ·-.,.-1 !-.. ........ I . '. l • I ~ •' I , ;, -.-~ .... ~ s:.. ,.::~. -~: ~~ l ~-): ~ ~ ~ ----'-----~- ~ "':- ").. I'"'\ ~ r .~ ... ! .. .._ f, -. .--....,. ·. -· -·-------! ,---! --- i:· ' . ... :~ t ..., : ('. ·-i· ..,_ ··~ .... , "'-4 • ,, ·.~~~t.l? ... ~. -----· ... -: .... ----.. .. :_;-. . , ' ' ''· ,_, .. -;.;.. -~ .. .; '-:::1':.' ;..: I ' . .., ·) ~ \ ;..,_ . l . '· . ~· ~ -.... ,_ . -; -'·~-' ........ ' •.. '-.. ~ ,- \> . ..:: ,, "',...)-. r-...;. • ... .. .: " (" ··----------·-_____ ·-!J·_. -.·. ! 'f"' ____ ........ _._:.:_--·_.: _ _:~·::. _:,._., -__ ' ____ .;_·~·-~".'=·":.._ _ __.:-:::: __ ~ ..... ·--··· ~·· -~: I i I I I GI I . ;I I ,j;i I ftl I ~.) 1 ··~· ._I ... ..-·::I _, i! (ii I ::·. .... . I r--'-1--·~·--';...,...;... __ -·-·l ,.. --...) --i------. -./' -. --i ~i ,.. . . ... I • : I 1 ~~ .... ·--- ............... · . .. ~ .~ ,.,... .. -c ' ·•. I, . ..., . . ., ... .. /~ ~ \,.. "-!' .. j . -~--4 .. .) •. •J 1' -· ~ '' Ir,! ·1 ~-I .! .l '·, ,/. ""':· ) ......... I I ~! : =; I GJ i I&! i a1 c l j r .i ; ,-! I ~I l o .c ! : Q. I .. -· .... "" '.5' ,.--._,I ·...:.":i.- _$.-; ......... , ·-..) ,_;, "-"" -~-· _, '.i \ ·:;.; ..-. 'i ,.. ' .... • > ... ~ 1: . 1.. /j QI :./'. ·\1 r----i-1---11-~-..-· __ __:r . ...,.,--~-'-" ,. . ' I I I I ··-z.. .( ·-~ il :1 --~-. \ "' ... .:\:__ '. .. ·~. ' .i. I ' +: '-.-t ( .. : .. ii i ......_! ~i ,· . ... .._:,;.· -- ,~ .. i .,..)"' ~ '= i ~1 <:. --.. ....... ~ _,.,. .....,. __ -· _._ '.· ..• ·~; --: '"! --.i ~:::;;:_ i __ i ~i --:::,..! .. I ~ ... . • -·- ..... , . \ r~. ·? .•. \ '_., ... _ 1. __ ·. ·, ~ . .r ... .. ,. . ., ,., .. '.r.' ' ' .. , ';, ~- . ·-.~ ..... ,~ .,...._ ·. ~--; .::J --·~ ... _.,} ., s -~ l ,-...·· ., ~I t.O:. ·'· ______); ··-.-. ...-r· ,· ~ J . ·-1 ~ t: ...,. '· ..... 7'-i. • .. \ '~~-":-·, .,JJ -.'.: ~ (""' i -,_ I ~· ~'· .. ' l ·>-.. ·'-,): ..r\ -. l i __, I . ) ! ~ -"-..l _.:.. )' -' --·""1 1 ::.c~ -· .. .... ' '· ,. I .rl-<' ', ... /">•, ·.·!;;------.:......._;... ~,. ,,, -. ..,. \,· .•. ,·-: . ~--~ ...::::.,; .. ::: ,,_ ,;; -... . r~··· .. " ..=.;-~~-:> . ,,' .. ·, - .. -... ·.,·'!!;'. ( ......, .. ...... :. J ... ..... --~ ': ! t: ~ ). "· ~ ·--... ./-.;;:1 ; r:-. .r·: ... : !-. ..,. •,' ~ · . ...... ., . . :· ' ·~ .. . .. : . . ·,.:_ , ~~-= ---~~: f -' .. :.: o, _________ .., _____ _ ·-·. ~:~ .O...,_.i. ,, , .... .... . ..... ··~ .. -··: .c;r: . .... ' J:.' . -·--· ~! ---------· ... -------~--~,..-.~·.?:--.v'J "--~· .j ! · .... ! ~j ·---_J ~· . ' ·-~-1 i . ~ ;e.r· -~.,;., f . ,. ~ '/' ~· l !>.f ~! (::::. . ' ~-...... ~ ., \. ) -. ·I l -· I I I ·1 :j . ; ... "'; ·-.. '11 r •• ' ' ..,j -i) c ! ·1 ~ ~I .·1 '-.£ .. Et 'l Oi ~ , V i I "-\ · -~--- ' or ·1· I ~!~ • --· I t: '-'\... ~; :•,; I 0: I ""-... -. • ..... ,,. . .r:: I .t '--\:.-·.. --·· • ! Ai ! ~~ ·~ •• -) ) 1..;.; ~ 1 ••1 . I ftS I . ,...:. ·~ . E I ~ '-.: l •i ~ 111 !, . -~3'..--....... -..,.-_,_-_..,.,...., ___ . -·-.· -------.-,...----:-.~ ' i ~i ~ I "I j j I I ·1 IP! . . . ' . I .... ·.:' . \ . .... _, · ... l .: I .,-.... -.1 ',I I .. ~· !I i 1i .. i t: . ~l§Pl .-~ •.. ! 'U) I • ..,___,··'.' ' --.i.-1: ~~ f .. .,'r -· .. -, \ '. .:-~! · . . .. • ·-. _, I -· . ·. , ..... -. ~ \ ~ .. -.. ·-· ....... _...,;i __ ... _,, ... · . . ' f\.\. ;.A ·, I . _...__. _______________ ... ..,_~~~j.o" -----~=--- .. - '··' j r .. r <' . .. -~ ,~, ·~ '-.::., . ·,. ''-Xl ·-.: 1': ---~ ~-\ --~~~ '. -~ ·,:_':\ .... ·~ ·. : ~ .·' ! ~. . ·.._J } . ,...,. \ .. • t ,_t "'\.;' ~-I ~ . !\' \,' ·---.... ----, .Alberto w ·ay Citize11s _Petitio11 Req·uest for Cl1an.ges to I-1a111IJ }Ja_rt11ers' Noven1ber 2017 405 AllJerto ·\Ala~\' design ·-· -··-··-· -·---..... ----···-·---------·---··---····---- Mass Mitigation Measures: Reduce the total size to below 56K sq. ft. The November 2017 footprint can achieve this with the portion of the building to the south of the central entrance at 2 stories with the portion to the North of the central entrance at 1 story. This element alone enables t h e remaining issues to be solved . Applicant still requests a mass that violates the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan and Commercial Design Guidelines . A lawsuit has been filed by three members of the Bella Vista Village HOA, against LG seeking to reverse the 339-341 Bella Vista Ave approval by the Town Council on grounds that the approval violated both the LG General Plan & Commercial Design Guidelines as well as State laws. We don't want the Town to encourage a repeat by violating any of its legal obligations. View Preservation Measures: Allow no large trees on the 405 property that will grow tall enough to again block the Public Views from any point at 4 .75 ft. high (eye level for a 5 ft. tall person) along the West side Sidewalk on Alberto (fronts the 405 property). Improve public views from along Alberto Way instead of degrading them by requiring Applicant to get permission from Cal-Trans to top the trees behind the Northern end of the building so they don't protrude above the North of the Building's 1 story roof, and continue topping them every year or two to keep them at or below the N building. Keep current base elevation (in feet above mean sea level) for the 405 Alberto Way building(s) as proposed in the last design, which lowers the roof line. If a 2nd floor is approved for the N. portion of the Building then the second floor should have no north facing windows, doors or balconies to prevent view into Las Casitas bedrooms. Damage to Surrounding Property Mitigation Measures: Drill new boring between Janl-March 31, 2018 on N end of the property to discover the actual depth to water. Since Applicant did the prior borings at the worst part of the drought, the normal water level has not been reported. Applicant's borings reported no depth to water in the northern most boring and claimed a collapse in the hole prevented it. This is suspicious since a hollow core drill bit was used so that the core could be read and the hole is within the 0-10 feet to water zone shown in the SCVWD depth to water illustrations we submitted (northern 2/3rd of 405 property}. Restrict parking to either surface only or 1 underground level to prevent the differential settling beneath the 250 foot radius from the foundation that our Hydrologist Dr. Geissler specified. This is the zone in which de-watering during construction (pumping water out of the foundation excavation) that is likely to cause ground subsidence followed by foundation settling & cracking at Las Casitas & the Pueblo de Los Gatos. Pipe breaks er misalignments are also possible from ground subsidence beneath Las Casitas & PDLG. When questioned at the Town Council meeting about ground movement by Mr. Rennie, Applicant's consultants replied only on ground movement during construction and that the excavation would be shored up. This was a half-truth. Ground subsidence caused by dewatering was not mentioned and our comment period was over, so we raise this aga i n now. Safety Issue Mitigation: Straighten out Alberto to enhance vision along the Applicant's property and take enough to eliminate the curve on the East side of the 405 Alberto property. Bike Lane -the design as currently proposed is not safe for bike riders: it doubles their exposure to being hit by autos (2 x lanes vs 1). Move the planned Alberto Way bike lane to far right of the Southbound exit from Alberto. California motorcycle driver education warns them to avoid riding between lanes to avoid such double exposure. On-street Parking Mitigation Measures: Residents oppose removal of any on-street parking as it is needed for residents and guests. The above ground parking at 405 was presented as a means of providing additional parking for residents and Grill 57, not just Grill 57, and we would like that to be "codified" as well. This would compensate the Pueblo and Las Casitas for loss of on-street parking - guarantee that Alberto Way residents can use the 405 surface parking 24x7x365 . Otherwise, keep on-street parking as- is. Surface parking at 405 Alberto can be any Alberto Way resident, not just Grill 57. Best Western needs it too and overflows to Alberto on full or nearly full nights. Grill 57 patrons take up the majority of the Best Western's parking lot on many nights. Establish Permit-Only Res i dent only parking to be implemented on Alberto -no commercial (i.e. Grill 57 or Best Western, 405 Tenants, etc.) or carpoolers (non-residents are presently parking cars on Alberto and carpooling with others). Traffic Mitigation Measures: A new Traffic Study is called for due to new information as follows. NETFLIX allots 60 square feet per employee in its new Los Gatos buildings. This was not known before now. Apple plans to house 900 employees in an SOK sq. ft. building in Fremont. This trend, which Alberto Way and other Los Gatos residents brought up during several PC and TC meetings call for a new traffic study to be done on 405 Alberto Way using the Caltrans study method. The LG Policy that the Caltrans, San Jose and San Diego study methods were withheld from us in several Pub!i::: Hearings by the Town Engineer. The Town is still massively under-collecting trip charges as they would be calculated under the other methods. The main source on Hwy 9 traffic congestion is caused by the 2 lane section of LG Blvd. Los Gatos Blvd exceeds its capacity during three of the four rush hours (morning, after school & evening). LGB needs to be widened to relieve the EB Rush Hour traffic failure at and between Alberto Way & Los Gatos Blvd on Hwy 9. It is folly to expect any signal timing between Alberto and LG Blvd can relieve this . Neither can extension of the EB Hwy 9 left turn pocket overcome the heightened traffic in the AM rush that the PD will bring. We have submitted photographic proof that LG B's 2 lane section is the cause of the congestion. A!low traffic exiting 405 Alberto to northbound Highway 17 to exit directly from the W side of the 405 property directly onto the Northbound 17 Ramp -not via Alberto & Highway 9: let the remainder of the traffic exit from Alberto via Hwy- 9. lf no direct entry is permitted by Caltrans from WB Hwy 9 into 405, then Alberto's widening needs a Center Turn lane (for motorists to be able to turn left going either north or south on Alberto) from the first driveway entry at Grill 57 /405 to the last entry at 405, with the land to provide the turn lane to be donated by 405, so that further on street parking is not taken away from residents. Widen Alberto enough so that the maximum length commuter bus allowed into 405 can turn South on Alberto from 405 to exit onto Hwy-9 without blocking incoming traffic from Hwy-9. "The Cat" blocked NB Alberto traffic from Hwy 9 proceeding as it exited the 405 property. Any Shuttle the developer wants to provide at 405 needs to operate at any time that the occupancy of 405 equals or exceeds 31,000 square feet. No sh.uttle circulator should be allowed outside of lunch hours. There is no public parking made available by Applicant to non-tenant riders. Another exit for Alberto Way residents & 405 Alberto employees from behind 475-485 to Pine could be provided: approve and fund an extension of the street at the end of the 475-485 parking lot to Pine Vista above so that we have another way out and are not trapped during and after construction. Approval to start demolition of existing structures needs to be contingent on: -the LG approval for LGB widening (since LGB exceeds capacity now between LGHS and Van Meter Elementary), -the approval of plans by Caltrans for the Hwys 9 & 17 Intersection renovation & the Hwy 17 widening from Lark to S Santa Cruz so that ROW needed from 405 Property is known and new building(s) on 405 are designed to accommodate the widening & intersection rebuild. -the approval by Caltrans for a right turn directly into the 405 Alberto property from Westbound Highway to reduce the increase of traffic on Alberto. There is sufficient room in the unused Hwy 9 ROW between 405 Alberto and the Hwy-y sidewalk to reconfigure this as the 405 entrance. Alberto Way Citizens Design \ \ !blic Mtn View Preservation & COL Compliance (n o viewing into las Casitas bedroom windows) ' Remove this 2nd Floor & lower root : . . I Th ese t rees to be removed for exit ram p and/or kept trimm e~ Calt ran s RO W prox rntn vie w ms;· --·2w ;-c ta fnedJrom ..tb·is xw::: · -~ No large trees-that eventually destroy the view and keep both front & rear trees trim med i'n perpet uity " PALO ALTO Cm..-'l'Vl.W Guidelines fOr Dewaterfng Du.ring, Bllsement Or· Below Ground G-arage Construction May -2017 Oo Febr:u_ary 1:. 2016, Palo Alt() ,~ity CooF'tll strel'l&tilened re(iuirem&pts ·-<!esigoe(f tu rmnimltt the ~ping and discharge of $R>urtch-Yater from basement,or :below .• t<l.lind garage} deWatetiJ'.18 during constructiOo. J>utnplnci of fP'Oand'h'itM after the COinpletiOn of ba$ement construction has not been permitted for-ewer il d~de~ :n rece11t. '"J$. cqntfftlS, that ~"sirJttiOn ~twaterl.og mav be wasti03 ~ttr, potenuanvdam~stng .mewres, trees :an(.t ·vegetaiion, and *'Pleting or aiterma t'* flow of.sroundwate~~ haVe arisen. Therefore Palo Alto·~ new.req!!iren"!er.ts. F>1bf:C woff<!i ontv atrows drawdot-m weU dewate.rlng _of ~muriawater~ Open pit dewitering.orpndwater ~ d~ltowed. Qpen_ pit de\'iat~rr111b•j~ fqr 111~ th•~ m.ay ~~mu late ~t the Qottomofan effi".avatioo, ifwater quaiiw itmJts are met~ Grouh~••d~'if'l!.3 o•,.f\! aU«n~d ~m Aprlf '--th~~ .... Octobe:--!1 riue~o lrnmequate capaclfyln t~ Chy'~ $tomrdraln5l)Stem. Open plt.dewateringofrainwater Is .1rowe,Hhto~:.rt tbe year, but must mt~l .water q11.i:ty r~uirem.~nt$. After ~ssing the re$9lts of"new~.:vftering regulation$ tf<>m ·t~ 201g Constr~tiOn Seascm,. ~he City Council-approved s£w.e~fe:nha~-n~s to toe4e-wat~rin& pofky·ihat hM! ~n codified io ealo Aito M~nkipal .ta~ ~nd go into ~ffi!c.t M~ 4, 2011~ The.2017 -eoha11tements indude lmproving iiU station perfo:rma~;. ensuring wa1ett"8,Q¥ ad,.cent ~~ng ~aetatic>'1,. mcnY.t1;1ring actual 1rc>u~er elevatiOn-chcngts, darttvms reportir-WJ, ar.d enhancing ate H)'dr~~al Study~ t~ffl ~ addins an e-~'llrnf'i~ w& ~~· lf_:p'Out'=-"t;q~ pa!rnr:ms ~n heilmlted io-SC :ur,.1 arlBS-usina tfldmlques such • ·wt~ !.~m_51 d~~. Resfciential sttfi·,~re now ogty a(l(n:• ~ •a~r f?r c;. !~~ ilme ~riod t"Y1th a 2_...ek st•t:tup per~. At the eod -ohiie twq-wetk stirtup per:fQd, compua"tew1r.1·aJ1 _perfor~l:'ite stan.d-.rd$ antt -watt!t qu•lity standards sNiH ~-demonstr.a~. ln atidltiori; cr.ooociwafer can cnty be _pumped up to a maximum of 3 ·feet be.tow the ~~~nt ~b ce~r. fo!tOWins the two~ $tart !Jp-pe~d. ·ont@ tile silb ~pouted~ tbe d~~h to the ~nter of tf\e .sr,& shaU -~· 1 fo·o.t. _A geotechnic~J r•"°rt ~µsi-b~ s~.~·~ (Qr ~ Sitt! (~ara~ i't:t>m-:the Geotechn~l Stulfy described beiovt),.and must Ust t'le t\igltest anticipated ·sroun<Jweeer: level. PubliC.WorlI! rf!Commt!nds apiezometer.to be 1nsm.lrec:J In ~ sotl boring. ~ cqritAttor _must detenn~ne •tw depth tp gt'.C)Undwatqr immed•tcrv prior to e~tavatioftbifusin' thepie~roeter ctt by dolling an e~p,toraiory-~ 11 ~ dee,estexr..iVitlOr\'wlll be withtn l feet ofthe-hlah.est ar.ticlpated trowldi~1tter ~l tf &rounti~ter lsfoutad to be w fthil\ 2. feet of the deepe~ e~~on, ~ draw<lownweU c:i~tt!rJn& ~m or ~utpff Wl!I mµst r;>e instalied; or, a_lter(lsti~ the con~ctor can~~ate for the be$efne.nt *1ih<1L'1 a de-V.~termc ~m ln place and hope nouo. hit 8rQ(MdWater. H'Qwtv~r, If sro:t1nd~ter ts·htt, -tho c;ontra~(lt must-lmmediat•tv stOP aJi-wpr~ ~nd mµst meet au orthe fOfk>wiifg requi rei rri2nU-prlor to re$t.m tns work. PubiitWorkS may reqlJire watt!r.to DfBt51ed for -contaminarrtS ptiortc> in~b.al dischatle arkl atintervats during dewatering; lf te!ting.is h!quited1 the contraetor must retain .an independent testing firm to ·test-the· dlsdlar1e water fQr the contaminllOts Pub1Jc Wor~ specl\l'le$.and Stibml~ the results to Public W~:uts. Betow IS a·summary of the pre'1!Mistfng requirements, wlth the recently adapted requirements ind\lded. The ave@flpt is to·mimmlze the dis~l'ft of gto.undwaterftOm b~se~ent con$tru~i0n (.lewatel'in1. The reqUirements fall ii.'lta mur-tate'3ories:cl) ttm stfitlons 'ate requf~o so UtaU>therS may fllr watettrudts·or a>nnect garoen hoses forfrrlj~011; 2} use ·plan$ars requlred .todemonstratethat,he appflcant/bulider is zrrangina fonJ$e ~f •$ rnuc" ~(the pumped: ·wa~r as pa,sibJe. a:1d.minihlfai"'8 $h>rm d .t:ali~ diseharse; ~l A G!at•chnlci:I StudY ts~ire~ to determine ariy potential •ffects and 'nffded avoidcifnce measures; and 4) Strei!t: Woifc/Oe~t'ermg permits a.r-e rac:uiied (and are1ssoed after requirements #1, #i ai:rciJ#3 are completed). l . Fib StatiOn Requfre!OO!tS fill Sl?don ~ulre~nt$ ere .ra~plJine~ in the auac:Mc:t •Fnl s~tjon 'Wqu(remen~ a~ are summertzec:t in .~~e eh~.:;i$t shOwn he!'1w; No.te: wt:en ·.fue .Cify,determinj's thtif the ·site t$ toodosE to aa, area of around water cmitamlnation, no fill station .Ii be Pft>llltfe4..) al Locate thf! fill -Station i>o:fotttiide the fenca to a11ow -24.:hour ~r dily access;: b) P!'QVfc=e 2 )$~· -~vtrant fitting hose co.nnec:t10~1 wit_h ~ SO-foot t:nlnlmum ) ~'•· AppOcaot n:u.:st ~~nstrate ma>d¢um 10'-mmvte fill tinte-~Ot " "?.7-0.0 ption wate.r ttudt cl Pm\tkie at ieut ~o l&IY •hoSes cfutstde t he ·flit station bOx, 10 gaUon5 pet mfa~te· (&pm) deliveries (sirn~tmn~f.J~)~) ~uring the tWo '.~(t~ ~'4h~ up per~ · · · · · d} Design.the tank ·~·satket :t~ stoti::f~ ~~rt !salwaysateeaitone~natffull; ~) GFloutrot instde orelectrica~ conn«tion ot1~Side ·~ha bei:;= f) •111 .. vse" covet ouer $Witth/oudet m bd~t; :d Provfde .;t .«water ~iltilyg Statbn")ign on -~he fl;I s'°~" lJox; h} Ptovid~ a "f\JGn~Potable ~'le"' ,tlgn Ott th~ dlsdw. ~O.ii:it !) "No H:ilSe!i Cros5:1l8 Streat and Skfewalft' Sign -at hose bibs; JJ Sµw1v·~ 5..,et$,, ·ant: a ~"' ftJSlde ~ bo~ ~'tnff.:ket$ to ~w d~te and a:mount:offiflJng~ !t} Pt:lvltb ~ ftli statton bOJ\, c<>mbinatfe:n :totlt (<om·bJoatton s-'lot.Jld ba z. 4,.6, B) ~) Provide .suffiC:lent flow meters andciata·:omers to de~ne OOdl ?he water used throughthe·fiH statlo!1 &11q the· to~! wa~r purn~"· froJTt th4; a~uad;. ml Ptotett e~it'lst · t-tip hazan:t5:Witbsldewin: btid~,el and f)J>PrO·pnattutsnage as needed;. n) OAC:e water ts in• tanlc;. cail Water~ Pr:>tectian t.65.0-32s-.24~/~U2) for water qualify.testing; o) When frfl .St~tkm ls &ady; ct)Qt'pbi~ Wo~ er41'.-11ng ~o~ (~96~929} fOrirtspectk>n and ·tatJ S~173 for ~e.ctncat Safety,Checlt; p) Fk>w rMte~-ShOukburt. £t zer0. ··ShoWd be easl~ readable and in ·a safe loatlon at the outtet of t."'H! sa~I~& tanfc; tt> Pump .a~ '1oJe=bil;l ~ ~"..-ior~~;. ct i\pptfcant wili "required to ~.QJ1att11\et.:Sur~_nts and. re.q~ments (reports due at the, enc; of the ~lt$tart~p ·peri~d~ the,n .. bj.;we~!dy,.a-nd then .a fihaf re·pon at the end of pumi)llng}. 2. YaPlans. A brief gmundwatet use -plan must,be pt3pared to show ,how the groundwater will be used to the ma~mum~::tePt ~~t :t Sh:~I b.41! s_.Dni~ with rn~ s~ wurk,/~terina Permtt Application1 and shall al.ntai n the talkw.rint .minrn"tum proviSlorts:. a) AppJN:an~ di$tributio11 Qf Cit\'•:>roviaed dODt-:itan~etfto advertls& the avaltabditY e>f war.r; thes~rare · to be .. co:lected !htUI !t:j:>parent ~her 24 hout~· b) Ap:;ilic;mt watering ~f (J_A".$ite,·and neigh~clng ve:e~tJOrl.i t~ ~e ~~t desi~d by owners~ tl Applidlnt J:1iplng wateJ ttt •nY tieert>y pal'lc$ and $Chools as req)Je$ted by Clty; dl Ap,1itarit tnieking watel' trie tutl"<fey per ~~k fuJriigatio n sites ts direc.~d by the City; e}. 19;;1~ usi~ "'ater on~sit• for ~t1Usu9p~ssiori end other cqhSt1~ron neMs· 3~ Geotec hnk&t studv l De ierminat!ort of i ffecl t anti Motiated Avplclancq ;Me1!1S9res: ?!m: 5!Jpilcams a ra.e::e~tJ!rtrn,m ·~'111 r~~w.amentff ~~~r@lt:'mpln;-call be:llmltcci to 30 epr.i or Im wl:te ~1 ntqi,~$ui:b.ut~t •ff YJ~~i a~~ condu~t• taeotechntcal study t~ d~termine tb~ tadius r;{ ihfmence tr;ei e¥tertt af tone of depression} from each dewaterintrweH asa functJon ·of tt.m~~ IJa"° on localsqihmdgrqundwater ~nd1tloos . .AU tt1ells and b.tf'ler ctewaterlng sl~e.s wttnln a 4.C-O-foo1 ·qdfus (rooghly one City blotk}.of. 'ttta ·property that may itlter ~ct.wt~h dewatertng '*tivit;y~ U5l"i inf9rtnitl0n •vaila·blt fn.Jm tlJe Q.~A she,ltbt! lnctudedJn the study. $tate or s~w tile exacUoca~ion. ~f ttTe·se ~aw~tel'tn~ site~. Prepa."'e· .~ ffl~P and C'1JSS ~~~loM of~ coi't.e{~.of d~prei'isfoo. 1be key dlanie' for 2011 J$·af)l)iit:•M$ )re ~w re~u~ to vefifv the·a.nticipated dtawdawn cu~ with ·a pumptest using a~~a;~ns.t.Q11~ ~~e®rn,terTSJts .(~PT)an; ~~encoµragedtl) verifysoifs:cjat.a . The ©ttL~J.pumpiha ra~ fo!k>wfng th.ca two wee~ start.,.up perlOd~ shaA be lknited to the rates caltulated in tbe:verifka~n,. lk! '™'"'n'ium amount of w&tttr pumf)ed .tlVer the'lO-W~~~ Plrio:d -sball ~· lfmited tothat ,c;tcu1atKS dunng ~catkm to supper~ thls:wor~, mew.;i~ tt.grQul\¢ water 1cw,1~t a dtstan~ repi'effntathte of the dfstanci.'l to the nec:rest stru.£:t1.1re on a11 adjaunt pih'Cet, Qt farthest feasible po:int on tt\e sub~ i1te~ this monitorir;g ~-..au r. daw far !:oe, tir$ti.~iee~ 1tt ·~11 \\tiiifv. thereafter. Al the. end qf the · 2 weef: ~"1:·.UP period Of ~tf~~er, ifd~wtfown ~tts Jre gre1t~r ~.n ~n ~dpa~d~ $.Ub~iU revised Geotect:Jnkat. StUd;' ahd .any reviffd tont(USlo'fi s on-1mpa.cu of the ar.oondw•t&r dr&wdoWii. Survey and marff land etev~tJon$on $.t rutt.i;h"es on edj•c;2ot parcels (obt•Jn p~nn!ssktn first) priot" to any pumphiS and weekly~~er. · · State . ~"it~r I.tis rea5onab!ylikel\f that ttia proJK>Sl!d.dewat:arinl wm cause effects (ir1cludina .settlement or movero•nt) Of\_ oif ..s~te ,,,Nate qr puhtt= struetum .or .infrastructure, itttludint :ttle right Of viav~ e~semcmur £11d ~litieS.t,\lithin putmi; ~ilitv ~a~e,n~~ ·State ~hf!~i it ls ra•nab.tyfikely thilt the proposed de\~·atering wm reouce the 1•u'1t of water taken u~.bv wietation or trees to a 1~1 that w.1l -~~ ttie hea ~tin1r~ie&ilit~ of the. vetetatkm or ~•t Vti lite·a Certified Atboris\ Sub Cc>nsilltant to verify aP.i such ~ect on ir~;: · To the me;1t ihaHhe 4,aalafied ?n)fessional States that.off--5itfu!!ffec:ti are re :isonabtir lifu!ly to occur, ldeJ!tify a¥Qff"Jance ~e~SU.~$ tQ be i;n~_ment~that wid ~litilnuze the ~ and~t\' of those effects;_ ·A~idance ~e11ures ,a1' a1so tQ be elrJJ;lilOYe<i t() the mi!!~t!'Ulll e~•nlpl'lctl¢al '. to ntlr1lmiie the flolN rate and .duratttm of the pumpin g~ e¥en, whan of#slte ~cts.are not s~ecfftcanv identified. Avotdance measu~l mav indude, fQr e~pte : optirruz1ng weii c.ou.nJ, wetl depth, weu toc:ailQn,. pumptnu-hlte,.. anG/or durattorf 'e>1 P~P(ntu Sl!PP(ementa1 htlpt~n ofi:rees or ~tatiQn, ·sori am®dment,or other p.lant protet.tion methods recommerided by a certlfled arborist; alternative deWlterlng or construction m~thbds~.Devek>p a monitorln:-.P.1an to asst$5 anv •ctU.al .effects QJl vese~titm,. trees, strUc:tu~ and ,lofrasttuttt.tte. Tf\t deQted1.nql $fu~v and de:wiptl(>n ;.l)d ~e9'? Qf tbe cone of. ctepre$sion must·~ stamped by a·-talifomra. Hcense.d Geotechi11Car Entineer and submitted to the City, and wilr be· made ;iwilable .1ot pubttc revrew.; A:Geotechnlcal-Stu.dy Wt)r!csheet ls •ttach~. 4~ Grar:ing Ptrm!t/St!fet Work/Oewatmjiw Permht\iJ!JliC,ption l)ewatermg Will nQw iletavi~-wed.as·part of the Gradiaµ Petl'T\ihThe Gradh:~g Permit for a prc:>jec~ willnat be issue(I until ill reCU!ff'ed sobmi.tt•l5 ~la~•9 to ~w11t-rfng have b~~n subm1tted; rceviewed and apptoveti by PubficWorb. Once eU;:equTred submlttafShavel>Mri reviewed and approved by Publff: WorkS, a D~taniig "P-2rmit and Street Wot!t Permit. must be o~~fned ~re cny di$C'-tseJrom the site occurs. Oev.,raterlng disch•m' tD tbs storm drain system q1nnptO(CUr ~en ·Ottober :n and April 1 to ensure that the ftdi Ciifladty ·Of ~he. storm drain 'S\fSteni rs -~allabt2 fOr storm flows. lfilie applicant ean demottt~.te thil~ theY c1m maintain !Os~ .flow.t ~ •~ect StreetWotic/Dewater'ina Permit ,t.pptk:ation Chetfdist ~s-t~ OP-e~ wofk$'1eei ('5 q~d ·t.~-thaGec:tiedlnkai study worksheet)., A Res.~entfal $tre-et WOfk/~w~~ttng Pe.rrnit _witl · tte ·1~d «>ra mc;~ijinum period of 10week$ to en~~ tha~ miniR'mtinn ·Cf pum?ic.s ~uratian Oc:wrs~ Ad.mlntsti'atwe pen-aith:?s sha1l.atcri.ie. foll0t=1ini the permit expirati~n .tiale~ if-pl;.rnf>in~ a.nd/pt tll~r~ t'Qritinu~. GUIDE FOR THE PREPARATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STlJDIES STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION December 2002 PREFACE The California Department of Transportation (Ca/trans) has developed this "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" in response to a survey of cities and counties in California. The purpose of that survey was to improve the Ca/trans local development review process (also knnwn as the Intergovernmental Review/California Environmental Quality Act or IGRICEQA process). The survey indicated that approximately 30 percent of the respondents were not aware of what Ca/trans required in a traffic impact study (TIS). In the early 1990s, the Ca/trans District 6 office located in Fresno identified a need to provide better quality and consistency in the analysis of traffic impacts generated by local development and land use change proposals that effect State highway facilities. At that time, District 6 brought together both public and private sector expertise to develop a traffic impact study guide. The District 6 guide has proven to be successfal at promoting consistency and uniformity in the identification and analysis of traffic impacts generated by local development and land use changes. The guide developed in Fresno was adapted for statewide use by a team of Headquarters and district staff. The guide will provide consistent guidance for Cal trans staff who review local development and land use change proposals as well as inform local agencies of the information needed for Ca/trans to analyze the traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The guide will also benefit local agencies and the development community by providing more expeditious review of local development proposals. Even though sound planning and engineering practices were used to adapt the Fresno TIS guide, it is anticipated that changes will occur over time as new technologies and more efficient practices become available. To facilitate these changes, Ca/trans encourages all those who use this guide to contact their nearest district office (i.e., IGRICEQA Coordinator) to coordinate any changes with the development team. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The District 6 traffic impact study guide provided the impetus and a starting point for developing the statewide guide. Special thanks is given to Marc Birnbaum for recognizing the need for a 11S guide and for his valued experience and vast knowledge of land use planning to significantly enhance the effort to adapt the District 6 guide for statewide use. Randy Treece from District 6 provided many hours of coordination, research and development of the original guide and should be commended for his diligent efforts. Sharri Bender Ehlert of District 6 provided much of the technical expertise in the adaptation of the District 6 guide and her efforts are greatly appreciated. A special thanks is also given to all those Cities, Counties, Regional Agencies, Congestion Management Agencies, Consultants, and Ca/trans Employees who reviewed the guide and provided input during the development of this Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. ii I. II. Ill. IV. v. VI. TABLE OF CON TE NTS Contents PREFACE and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION WHEN A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IS NEEDED A. Trip Generation Thresholds B. Exceptions C . Updating An Existing Traffic Impact Study SCOPE OF TRAFFIC IMP ACT STUDY A. Boundaries of the Traffic Impact Study B. Traffic Analysis Scenarios TRAFFIC DATA A. Trip Generation B. Traffic Counts c. Peak Hours D. Travel Forecasting (Transportation Modeling) TRAFFIC IMP ACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES A. Freeway Sections B. Weaving Areas c. Ramps and Ramp Junctions D. Multi-lane Rural and Urban Highways E . Two-lane Highways F . Signalized Intersections G. U nsignalized Intersections H. Transit Capacity I. Pedestrians J. Bicycles K . Cal trans Criteria/Warrants L. Channelization MITIGATION MEASURES Appendix "A" Minimum Contents of Traffic Impact Study Appendix "B" Methodology for Calculating Equitable Mitigation Measures Appendix "C" Measures of Effectiveness by Facility Type Page Number 11 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 lll I. INTRODUCTION Caltrans desires to provide a safe and efficient State transportation system for the citizens of California pursuant to various Sections of the California Streets and Highway Code. This is done in partnership with local and regional agencies through procedures established by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other land use planning processes. The intent of this guide is to provide a starting point and a consistent basis in which Caltrans evaluates traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The applicability of this guide for local streets and roads (non-State highways) is at the discretion of the effected jurisdiction. Caltrans reviews federal, State, and local agency development projects 1, and land use change proposals for their potential impact to State highway facilities. The primary objectives of this guide is to provide: o guidance in determining if and when a traffic impact study (TIS) is needed, D consistency and uniformity in the identification of traffic impacts generated by local land use proposals, o consistency and equity in the identification of measures to mitigate the traffic impacts generated by land use proposals, a lead agency2 officials with the information necessary to make informed decisions regarding the existing and proposed transportation infrastructure (see Appendix A, Minimum Contents ofa TIS) D TIS requirements early in the planning phase of a project (i.e., initial study, notice of preparation, or earlier) to eliminate potential delays later, o a quality TIS by agreeing to the assumptions, data requirements, study scenarios, and analysis methodologies prior to beginning the TIS, and o early coordination during the planning phases of a project to reduce the time and cost of preparing a TIS. II. WHEN A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IS NEEDED The level of service3 (LOS) for operating State highway facilities is based upon measures of effectiveness (MOEs). These MOEs (see Appendix "C-2") describe the measures best suited for analyzing State highway facilities (i.e., freeway segments, signaFzed intersections, on-or off-ramps, etc.). Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" (see Appendix "C-3") on State highway facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS . If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing MOE should be maintained. 1 "Project" refers to activities directly undertaken by government, financed by government, or requiring a permit or other approval from government as defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15378 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 "Lead Agency" refers to the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Defined in Section 21165 of the Public Resources Code, the "California Environmental Quality Act, and Section 15367 of the California Code of Regulations. 3 "Level of service" as defined in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. A. Trip Generation Thresholds The following criterion is a starting point in determining when a TIS is needed. When a project: 1. Generates over 100 peak hour trips assigped to a State highway facility 2. Generates 50 to 100 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility -and, affected State highway facilities are experiencing noticeable delay; approaching unstable traffic flow conditions (LOS "C" or "D''). 3. Generates 1 to 49 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway faci lity -the foll owing are examples that may require a full TIS or some lesser analysis4 : a . Affected State highway facilities experiencing significant delay; unstable or forced traffic flow conditions (LOS "E " or "F"). b. The potential risk for a traffic incident is significantly increased (i.e., congestion related collisions, non-standard sight distance considerations, increase in traffic conflict points, etc.). c . Change in local circulation networks that impact a State highway facility (i.e., direct access to State highway facility, a non-standard highway geometric design, etc.). Note: A traffic study may be as simple as providing a traffic count to as complex as a microscopic simulation. The appropriate level of study is determined by the particulars of a project, the prevailing highway conditions, and the forecasted traffic. B. E xceptions Exceptions require consultation between .the lead agency, Caltrans, and those preparing the TIS. Whe n a project's traffic impact to a State highway facility can clearly be anticipated without a study and all the parties involved (lead agency, developer, and the Caltrans district office) are able to negotiate appropriate mitigation, a TIS may not be necessary. C . Updating An E xisting T raffic lmpa ct Study A TIS requires updating when the amount or character of traffic is significantly different from an earlier study. Generally a TIS requires updating every two years. A TIS may require updating sooner in rapidly developing areas and not as often in slower deve loping areas. In these cases, consultation with Caltrans is strongly recommended. III. SCOPE OF TRAf'FIC IMPACT STUDY Consultation between the lead a gency, Caltrans, and those preparing the TIS i s recommended before commencing work on the study to establish the appropriate scope. At a minimum, the TIS should include the following: A. Boundarie s of the T raffic Impact Study All State highway facilities impacted in accordance with the criteria in Section II should be studied. Traffic impacts to local streets and roads can impact intersections with State highway facilities. In these cases, the TIS should include an analysis of adjacent local facilities , upstream and downstream, of the intersection (i.e., driveways, intersections, and interchange s) with the State highway. 4 A "les ser analys is" m ay include obtaining traffic counts, prC}Jaring signal warrants, or a fo cused TIS , etc . 2 B. Traffic Analysis Scenarios Caltrans is interested in the effects of general plan updates and amendments as well as the effects of specific project entitlements (i.e., site plans, conditional use permits, sub- divisions, rezoning, etc.) that have the potential to impact a State highway facility. The complexity or magnitude of the impacts of a project will normally dictate the scenarios necessary to analyze the project. Consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans, and those preparing the TIS is recommended to determine the appropriate scenarios for the analysis. The following scenarios should be addressed in the TIS when appropriate: 1. When only a general plan amendment or update is being sought, the following scenarios are required: a) Existing Conditions -Current year traffic volumes and peak hour LOS analysis of effected State highway facilities. b) Proposed Project Only with Select Zone5 Analysis -Trip generation and assignment for build-out of general plan. c) General Plan Build-out Only -Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis. Include current land uses and other pending general plan amendments. d) General Plan Build-out Plus Proposed Project -Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis. Include proposed project and other pending general plan amendments. 2. When a general plan amendment is not proposed and a proposed project is seeking specific entitlements (i.e., site plans, conditional use permits, sub-division, rezoning, etc.), the following scenarios must be analyzed in the TIS: a) Existing Conditions -Current year traffic volumes and peak hour LOS analysis of effected State highway facilities. b) Proposed Project Only-Trip generation, distribution, and assignment in the year the project is anticipated to complete construction. c) Cumulative Conditions (Existing Conditions Plus Other Approved and Pending Projects Without Proposed Project) -Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis in the year the project is anticipated to complete construction. d) Cumulative Conditions Plus Proposed Project (Existing Conditions Plus Other Approved and Pending Projects Plus Proposed Project) -Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis in the year the project is anticipated to complete construction. e) Cumulative Conditions Plus Proposed Phases (Interim Years) -Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis in the years the project phases are anticipated to complete construction. 3 . In cases where the circulation element of the general plan is not consistent with the land use element or the general plan is outdated and not representative of current or future forecasted conditions, all scenarios from Sections III. B. 1. and 2. should be utilized with the exception of duplicating of item 2.a. 5 "Select zone" analysis represents a project only traffic model run, where the project's trips are distributed and assigned along a loaded highway network. This procedure isolates the specific impact on the State highway network. 3 IV. TRAFFIC DATA Prior to any fieldwork, consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans, and those preparing the TIS is recommended to reach consensus on the data and assumptions necessary for the study. The following elements are a starting point in that consideration. A. Trip Generation The latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) TRIP GENERATION report should be used for trip generation forecasts. Local trip generation rates are also acceptable if appropriate validation is provided to support th.em. 1. Trip Generation Rates -When the land use has a limited number of studies to support the trip generation rates or when the Coefficient of Determination (R2) is below 0 .75, consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended. 2. Pass-by Trips6 -Pass-by trips are only considered for retail oriented development. Reductions greater than 15% requires consulta~~:m and acceptance by Caltrans. The justification for exceeding a 15% reduction should be discussed in the TIS. 3. Captured Trips7 -Captured trip reductions greater than 5% requires consultation and acceptance by Caltrans. The justification for exceeding a 5% reduction should be discussed in the TIS. 4. Transportation Demand Management (TOM) -Consultation between the lead agency and Caltrans is essential before applying trip reduction for TDM strategies. NOTE: Reasonable reductions to trip generation rates are considered when adjacent State highway volumes are sufficient (at least 5000 ADT) to support reductions for the land use. B. Traffic Counts Prior to field traffic counts, consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended to determine the level of detail (e.g., location, signal timing, travel speeds, turning movements, etc.) required at each traffic count site. All State highway facilities within the boundaries of the TIS should be considered. Common rules for counting vehicular traffic include but are not limited to: 1. Vehicle counts should be conducted on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, or Thursdays during weeks not containing a holiday and conducted in favorable weather conditions . 2. Vehicle counts should be conducted during the appropriate peak hours (see peak hour discussion below). 3. Seasonal and weekend variations in traffic should also be considered where appropriate (i.e., recreational routes, tourist attractions, harvest season, etc.). C. Peak Hours To eliminate unnecessary analysis, consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended during the early planning stages of a project. In general, the TIS should include a morning (a.m.) and an evening (p .m.) peak hour analyses. Other peak hours (e.g., 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p .m., weekend, holidays, etc.) may also be required to determine the significance of the traffic impacts generated by a project. 6 "Pass-by" trips are made as intermediate stops between an origin and a primary trip destination (i.e., home to work, home to shopping, etc.). 7 "Captured Trips" are trips that do not enter or leave the driveways of a project's boundary within a mixed-use development. 4 D. Travel Forecasting (Transportation Modeling) The local or regional traffic model should reflect the most current land use and planned improvements (i.e., where programming or funding is secured). When a general plan build- out model is not available, the closest forecast model year to build-out should be ust>.cL If a traffic model is not available, historical growth rates and current trends can be used to project future traffic volumes. The TIS should clearly describe any changes made in the model to accommodate the analysis of a proposed project. V. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 1\-IETHODOLOGIES Typically, the traffic analysis methodologies for the facility types indicated below are used by Caltrans and will be accepted without prior consultation. When a State highway has saturated flows, the use of a micro-simulation model is encouraged for the analysis (please note however, the micro-simulation model must be calibrated and validated for reliable results). Other analysis methods may be accepted, however, consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended to agree on the data necessary for the analysis. A. Freeway Segments -Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)*, operational analysis B. Weaving Areas -Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) C. Ramps and Ramp Junctions-HCM*, operational analysis or Caltrans HDM, Caltrans Ramp Metering Guidelines (most recent edition) D. Multi-Lane Highways -HCM*, operational analysis E. Two-lane Highways -HCM*, operational analysis F. Signalized Intersections8 -HCM*, Highway Capacity Software**, operational analysis, TRAFFIX™**, Synchro**, see footnote 8 G. Unsignalized Intersections -HCM*, operational analysis, Caltrans Traffic Manual for signal warrants if a signal is being considered H. Transit -HCM*, operational analysis I. Pedestrians -HCM* J. Bicycles-HCM* K. Caltrans Criteria/Warrants-Caltrans Traffic Manual (stop signs, traffic signals, freeway lighting, conventional highway lighting, school crossings) L. Channelization-Caltrans guidelines for Reconstruction oflntersections, August 1985, Ichiro Fukutome *The most current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transpo~tion Research Board, National Research Council, should be used. **NOTE: Caltrans does not officially advocate the use of any special software. However, consistency with the HCM is advocated in most but not all cases. The Caltrans local development review units utilize the software mentioned above. If different software or analytical techniques are used for the TIS then consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended. Results that are significantly different than those produced with the analytical techniques above should be challenged. 8 The procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual "do not explicitly address operations of closely spaced signalized intersections. Under such conditions, several unique characteristics must be considered, including spill-back potential from the downstream intersection to the upstream intersection, effects of downstream queues on upstream saturation flow rate, and unusual platoon dispersion or compression between intersections. An example of such closely spaced operations is signalized ramp terminals at urban interchanges. Queue interactions between closely spaced intersections may seriously distort the procedures in" the H9M. 5 VI.MITIGATION MEASURES The TIS should provide the nexus [Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987, 483 U.S. 825 (108 S.Ct. 314)] between a project and the traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The TIS should also establish the rough proportionality [Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994, 512 U.S. 374 (114 S. Ct. 2309)] between the mitigation measures and the traffic impacts. One method for establishing the rough proportionality or a project proponent's equitable responsibility for a project's impacts is provided in Appendix "B." Consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS is recommended to reach consensus on the mitigation measures and who will be responsible. Mitigation measures must be included in the traffic impact analysis. This determines if a project's impacts can be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance. Eliminating or reducing impacts to a level of insignificance is the standard pursuant to CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The lead agency is responsible for administering the CEQA review process and has the principal authority for approving a local development proposal or land use change. Caltrans, as a responsible agency, is responsible for reviewing the TIS for errors and omissions that pertain to State highway facilities. However, the authority vested in the lead agency under CEQA does not take precedence over other authorities in law. If the mitigation measures require work in the State highway right-of-way an encroachment permit from Caltrans will be required. This work will also be subject to Caltrans standards and specifications. Consultation between the lead agency, Caltrans and those preparing the TIS early in the planning process is strongly recommended to expedite the review of local development proposals and to reduce conflicts and misunderstandings in both the local agency CEQA review process as well as the Caltrans encroachment permit process. 6 APPENDIX ''A'' MINIMUM CONTENTS OFA TRAFFIC IMP ACT STUDY MINIMUM CONTENTS OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REPORT I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IL TABLE OF CONTENTS A. List of Figures (Maps) B. List of Tables III. INTRODUCTION A. Description of the proposed project B. Location of project C. Site plan including all access to State highways (site plan, map) D . Circulation network including all access to State highways (vicinity map) E. Land use and zoning F. Phasing plan including proposed dates of project (phase) completion G. Project sponsor and contact person(s) , H. References to other traffic impact studies IV. TRAFFICANALYSIS A. Clearly stated assumptions B. Existing and projected traffic volumes (including turning movements), facility geometry (including storage lengths), and traffic controls (including signal phasing and multi- signal progression where appropriate) (figure) C. Project trip generation including references (table) D. Project generated trip distribution and assignment (figure) E . LOS and warrant analyses -existing conditions, cumulative conditions, and full build of general plan conditions with and without project V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. LOS and appropriate MOE quantities of impacted facilities with and without mitigation measures B . Mitigation phasing plan including dates of proposed mitigation measures C. Define responsibilities for implementing mitigation measures D. Cost estimates for mitigation measures and financing plan VI. APPENDICES A. Description of traffic data and how data was collected B. Description of methodologies and assumptions used in analyses C. Worksheets used in analyses (i.e., signal warrant, LOS, traffic count information, etc.) 2 APPENDIX ''B'' METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING EQUITABLE MITIGATION MEASURES METHOD FOR CALCULATING EOUITABLE MITIGATION MEASURES The methodology below is neither intended as, nor does it establish, a legal standard for determining equitable responsibi1ity and cost of a. project's traffic impact, the intent is to provide: 1. A starting point for early discussions to address traffic mitigation equitably. 2. A means for calculating the equitable share for mitigating traffic impacts. 3. A means for establishing rough proportionality [Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994, 512 U.S. 374 (114 S. Ct. 2309)]. The formulas should be used when: • A project has impacts that do not immediately warrant mitigation, but their cumulative effects are significant and will require mitigating in the future. • A project has an immediate impact and the lead agency has assumed responsibility for addressing operational improvements NOTE: This formula is not intended for circumstances where a project proponent will be receiving a substantial benefit from the identified mitigation measures. In these cases, (e.g., mid-block access and signalization to a shopping center) the project should take full responsibility to toward providing the necessary infrastructure. EQUITABLE SHARE RESPONSIBILITY: Equation C-1 NOTE: TE< Ta, see explanation for Ts below. T p Where: P = The equitable share for the proposed project's traffic impact. T = The vehicle trips generated by the project during the peak hour of adjacent State highway facility in vehicles per hour, vph. Ts = The forecasted traffic volume on an impacted State highway facility at the time of general plan build-out (e.g., 20 year model or the furthest future model date feasible), vph. TE = The traffic volume existing on the impacted State highway facility plus other approved projects that will generate traffic that has yet to be constructed/opened, vph. EQUITABLE COST: Equation C-2 Where: C = The equitable cost of tratlic mitigation for the proposed project, ($). (Rounded to nearest one thousand dollars) P = The equitable share for the project being considered. CT = The total cost estimate for improvements necessary to mitigate the forecasted traffic demand on the impacted State highway facility in question at general plan build-out,($). NOTES 1. Once the equitable share responsibility and equitable cost has been established on a per trip basis, these values can be utilized for all projects on that State highway facility until the forecasted general plan build-out model is revised. 2. Truck traffic should be converted to passenger car equivalents before utilizing these equations (see the Highway Capacity Manual for converting to passenger car equivalents). 2 3. If the per trip cost is not used for all subsequent projects, then the equation below will be necessary to determine the costs for individual project impact and will require some additional accounting. Equation C-2.A Where: C = Same as equation C-2. P = Same as equation C-2. CT = Same as equation C-2 . Cc = The combined dollar contributions paid and committed prior to current project's contribution. This is necessary to provide the appropriate cost proportionality. Example: For the first project to impact the State highway facility in question since the total cost (CT) estimate for improvements necessary to mitigate the forecasted traffic demand, Cc would be equal to zero. For the second project however, C would equal P2(CT-C 1) and for the third. project to come along C would equal P3[CT -(C1 + C2)] and so on until build-out or the general plan build-out was recalculated. 3 APPENDIX ''C'' MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS BY FACILITY TYPE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS BY FACILITY TYPE TYPE OF FACILITY MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS (MOE) Basic Freeway Segments Density (pc/mi/In) Ramps Density (pc/mi/ln) Ramp Terminals Dela _(se~veh) Multi-Lane Highways Densicy (£_".fmi/ln) Two-Lane Highways 1 Percent-Time-Following ··---·· Average Travel Speed (mi/hr) Shroalized Intersections Control Delay per Vehicle (scc/veh) U nsignalized Intersections Average Control Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh) Urban Streets Average Travel Speed (mi/hr) Measures of effectiveness for level of service definitions located in the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 2 Transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" Criteria (Reference Highway Capacity Manual) BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS @ 65 mi/hr LOS I Maximum Minimum Maximum I Maximum I Density Speed v/c I Service I (pc/mi/In) (mph) Flow Rate , I (oc/hr/ln) A 11 I 65 .0 0.30 I 710 B 18 65.0 0.50 1170 c 26 64 .6 0.71 1680 ..,,..........,,..,,-.-..-r·~-··w-:.'f"il"'l("'T"(~~ ·~~~-l""O"I.-..:.-~ ............. ,..-... ~i.;-.. -,..,--i:1"'i:-tf"l" "'"'"2090",.·"~· ' D 35 59.7 0.89 E 45 52.2 1.00 '2350 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS and RAMP TERMINALS LOS Control Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh) A ::s; 10 B > 10-20 c > 20-35 ~ ~ u " ... c ~~ • " ~",~~~·~·~•8WU ~~c s c ~~ D > 35-55 E > 55-80 F >80 MULTI-LANE HIGHWAYS @55 mi/hr LOS Maximum Minimum Maximum Maximum Density Speed v/c Service (pc/mi/In) (mph) Flow Rate I 1 (oc/hr/ln) A 11 55.0 0.29 600 B 18 55.0 0.47 990 c 26 I :t ~ !:•· ?.1·~". ~ ~., .. u ... g~?-~ ·~·. I .~" ~,.1.1~!!~ •c.. ~ , ". ;1 ~. "1 . l't .,lllC ~4 ••:.i ::.•"~0 • D 35 52.9 0.88 1850 I tt.•• "". E 41 51.2 1.00 2100 ••••• Dotted line represents th~ transition between LOS "C" and LOS "Di; 3 TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS LOS Percent Average Travel Speed Time-Spent-Followine; (mi/hr) A 35 >55 B > 35-50 > 50-55 . 'l'Q ll !;n,·•• "•,. tiR . ~•u >, 5.0 r.i"7l ti.5 r. • • .. ** •:. • • • n• 1111 •=-1.:.11:• ~J&S.o S.Q c •• 0:4.• ""~• a ••• o ~ I D > 65-80 I > 40-45 --1 E >80 40 URBAN STREETS Urban Street Class I II III IV Rane;e of FFS 55 to 45 mi/hr 45 to 35 mi/hr 35 to 30 mi/hr 35 to 25 mi/hr TypicalFFS . r 40 mi/hr 35 mi/hr 30 mi/hr LOS A vera2e Travel Speed (mi/hr) A >42 >35 >30 >25 B > 34-42 > 28-35 > 24-30 > 19-25 c > 27-34 > 22-28 > 18-24 > 13-19 .... ~;.""">!"!!~:-'-:-.,.,~_;-,o;-_ ... .,nii.-_~,a---.-.-r-. ::c.-~~;-~..rzir~~ ~~~~-... __ .,._ .... _<'l•~~-"·t -~ .... ... . .,~ ~;~9 ·_.:;i·3 ~-... D > 21-27 > 17-22 > 14 -18 E > 16-21 > 13 -17 > 10-14 >7-9 F 16 13 10 7 ••••• Dotted line represents the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" 4 GRAY DAVIS Governor MARIA CONTRERAS-SWEET Secretary Business, Transportation and Housing Agency , JEFF MORALES Director California Department of Transportation RANDELL H. IWASAKI Deputy Director Maintenance and Operations JOHN A. (Jack) BODA Chief Division of Traffic Operations BRIAN J. SMITH Deputy Director Planning and Modal Programs JOAN SOLLENBERGER Chief Division of Transportation Planning Additional copies of these guidelines can be copied from the internet at, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/operationalsystems/ Planning Commission 11 OE Main Street Loa Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Commissioners, RECEIVED DEC 07 2017 TO\NN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION I want to tell what happened to me so you can understand why I am so frightened of this new Development at 405 Alberto Way and the traffic It wlll bring. I am a resident of Los Gatos Commons. In 2014, I became very short of breath; a neighbor saw me pass out and called 911. The EMR was here In five minutes. When I woke up, the ER doctors said I was very lucky that I got In so qulckly as two more minutes delay, I would have been deadll I am so worried about myself and other Ill residents here at the Commons. The traffic and congestion on our once quiet street has me very worried as my chronic problems and those of my neighbors are complicated and often need quick response. Please make the size and the traffic of the development In keeping with a street full of seniors who have medlcal problems. Thank You Kathy Figueroa, , Resident of the os Gatos Commons Planning Commission 110 E Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Commissione"5, RECEIVED ·ofc 07 2017 TOWN OF LOS GATO" PLANNING DMSIOi~ I became involved in the 405 Alberto Way project July, 2016 when all the residents at The Los Gatos Commons received the enclosed notice; the first public outreach from the developer to anyone at the Los Gatos Commons. We had already passed apparently the deadline to comment on the EIR as we were all new to this process. I wrote to the Vice Mayor Sayoc about our limited abilities to fight this out of scale development to our quiet dead end street on 9/2116 and again on 3/17/17, (letters included). The reply was "Let me give thought on who would be best to help you and your neighbors" Since that was the last communication, our committee started to work using our own resources. Los Gatos Commons is our home and many of my neighbors are in no condition to help to defend their homes. All the neighbors on Alberto Way are all working for the common good including for the developer and this project. To help the Town of Los Gatos and the Project come to a WIN-WIN conclusion the following must be considered: The building must come down in square footage to be in scale with 475- 485 Alberto Oaks( approx. 56,000 sq.ft.) and to be in scale with the two wings of Pueblo de Los Gatos (approx. 55,000 sq.ft .. ) .. The reduced square footage would bring less traffic, less excavation, and less cost to the .. developer. The reduced square footage would mean no need to excavate two levels for the garage thus eliminating the risk of cracked pipes for adjaceht properties. I walk most days downtown using the creek trail and the real treat is looking up at the Santa Cruz Mountains from the sidewalk. The new design continues to block the public view of the mountains. H there was an 80 foot set back on the far north property line adjacent to Las Casitas then at least we would have some mountain view. Our requests are simple: reduce the size to reflect the neighborhood, therefore around 56,000 sq.ft., dig for just one level underground garage, and protect the existing public view. Thank you for all your hard work on this. projeet Sincerely, Marilyn Basham Resident of Los Gatos Commons LjO(~ tjtJ~ Neighborhood Open I-louse As many of you already know, LP Acquisitions, LLC is p1anning to constru new office buildings at 401-405 Alberto Way. We would like you to Join us for an evening of information sharing and community input! lt. will be an interactive, open house format, where you w have a chance to talk directly with members of the development team. Yo input is welcome. Our proposal features redevelopment of the site with two new two-story Class up.:' office buildings, totaling 91 ,965 square feet. Parkhg would be provided in two fevels of underground parking with eight su.-'face parking spaces provided for visitor parking . We have taken great care in developing a concept for redevelopment of this well-located property that wm fully comply with the Town's General Plan, goals and policies . P··ofessional office tenants will occupy the building; just a.s they do today but with the added benefit of sustainable and energy-efficient building rr.aterials and systems. The Town of Los Gatos will be meeting in August to evaluate the project. You will see "Story Poles" installed at the site later this wee!<. as required by the Town in it's review process. Story Poles are poles that tell a story by ,. depicting the bulk and mass of a proposed structure or project. For more information please visit our website at www.401 albertoway .com Rt: /t1 /,JD~-;e: .,L/-UG ().5 T /OW/\/ /L1EETtN{; OM WED . , /0 l+T 7:00PM /A/ T~WA/ ,.. .. ~ .. ~ c-,p c (AJ6t.i ro i7K LC Lt1!3JC;J-ie.y) From: Marilyn Basham marilynbasham @mac.com Subject: ' a Senior Advocate? NEW DRAFT COMMUNICATION Oa March 2, 2017 at . :43 AM To: Fowler lorettakfowler@gmail.co m Cc: John R Mittelstet jmitt@comcast.net, mariettariney mariettariney @gmail.com, Shirley Ryan shirleyryan2001@gmail.com, Suzanne Currie Noble suzannecurrle@ mac.com, Jean Jones jfjones39@ yah oo .com Dear Ms Sayoc, I have been slow to fotlow up on request for help, bUt I would like to know what are the resources that we seniors can look to for help. Since I wrote the stress and anxiety level in our community has ramped up to very high levels. This is partially true as seniors contemplate the isolation this massive project( rooking just at 401-409) is going to cause both physically and socially. We live on a dead street, we have no others options to get groceries or get to medical appointments except through a construction zone with upwards of 150-200 diesel truck trips a day. H this project goes through even beyond the construction phase we will see out of proportion traffic density and disruption such that quality of life for us will continue to diminish. One could almost make a case far "Elder Abuse". I know this a huge statement but the stress of potential physical and social ISOLATION weighs heavily on my community. Please help me find resources. Thank You Manlyn Basham Begin forwarded message: From: Marica Sayoc <MSa~losqatosca .qov > Subject: Re: How to find a Senior Advocate? Date: September 2, 2016at1 :44:53 PM PDT To: Marilyn Basham <marilynbasham@mac.com> Hi Marilyn - Let me give thought on who would be best to help you and your neighbors. ***************************************** Marico Sayoc Vice Mayor,Town of Los Gatos ***************************************** 12:41 PM, Marilyn Basham <marilY.nbasham@mac.com> wrote: Dear Ms. Sayoc, First of all : I am not asking for comment on 401-409 Alberto Way Project as it being considered by the Planning Commission. I am asking for help for the seniors of Alberto Way including myself to help us add a voice to the invasion of our quiet dead end street by possibly TWO MEGA (401-409 and 475-485 Alberto Way) developments. Unlike the outside developer, we don't have a staff of lawyers, technical advisors or unlimited resources. We are seniors like myself who have worked hard, paid 30+ years of property taxes to Los Gatos and business taxes to Los Gatos ( I own a small medical building) and now recently retired in town to be close to grandchildren. What's a senior to do? I am a resident of the Los Gatos Commons : it is a rare +55 and over complex of independent condos within walking distance of town. I worry about my neighbors on walkers , canes, and motorized wheelchairs who won't be able to walk or get out because of the traffic, air, and noise pollution let alone the difficulty for the EMA response time. Please let me know where I can find someone to help us navigate this huge challenge to our quiet dead end street and to our quality of life. Sincerely, Marilyn Basham 439 Alberto Way A207 Los Gatos, CA 95032 ·--..·····--.. , ........ - Jennifer Armer From: Serit: To: Subject: December 7, 2017 To The Planning Commission: Jean Farren Jones <jfjones39@yahoo.com> Thursday, December 07, 2017 9:52 AM Jennifer Armer Project at 405 Alberto Way The boards of Pueblo de Los Gatos, Las Casitas, and the Los Gatos Commons wish to notify you that we have broad agreement on the three principles that should be applied to the 405 Alberto Way project. These are: 1.) A building size less than 62,000 sq. ft. 2.) Surface parking or no more than a one level underground parking garage. 3.). Protection of the existing public views on the north corridor of the site. Sincerely, Jean Farren Jones, Pres. Los Gatos Commons Sent from my iPhone TO : The town of Los Gatos Planning Commission From : The residents of Pueblo de Los Gatos Date: December 7, 2017 RECEIVED UtL _ / Z017 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Please see attached petition from the Residents of Pueblo de Los Gatos regarding the 405 Alberto Way Project. This petition supports the overall neighborhood concerns of all residents of Alberto Way. This petition has been signed by all (5) Board members of Pueblo de Los Gatos: Jannette Scott , unit 18 Charles Bawden unit 40 Alex Granas unit 41 Cathy Cathey unit 44 Janet Prince unit 52 Thank you, Cathy Cathey To : The Planning Commission From: The Residents of Pueblo De Los Gatos Date: December I , 2017 We request that you do not approve the Architectural Site and Conditional Use Permit Applications and the EIR for Redesign 3 of the 405 Alberto Way project. Instead, we support: #1 #2 #3 I. A further reduction in square footage to be consistent with the Commission's decision in the August 26, 2017 hearing (less than .62,000 S. F.). 2 . PreServation and protection of the existing public view of the Santa Cruz Mountains on the north corridor of the site. 3. A one-story underground garage. Unit Print name Signature . . #4 #5 #7 #9 #IO #11 #14 . . #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 VQLC. ~ #21 1z/or / /·7 j #23 ZtJna fe le r-s~n /'2-¥-17 #24 ;:i -s--r:;. #11 '2] clolie'Th~ #28 #29 '1' (b..C: <Mr #30 #32 ~ #33 , x\ "'.YW>tAJ H ·V\ ·· ~ #34 • I ,. #37 -lf?r ~" #39 4f }f Sh, vSJ JtvU ~ #40./f 1o [' ~ML-k7 g~~ #41 ttl.f; ~ #42 -uc_.} A),~ &. ~y~ ~1zfofzo0- /t: · rz/s /!:1 #44 L\Y C0v-t\-.'j ~e,6 ~ _l 1.. \ \ \ 1 / ~ \"'\\C-'1'"'~\ c~nn \l..-L.Gro #4s ~ "-\S ~'v<~\q· ~qr ~2-/ \ / 1:1 #47 ctlA-Q #48 #49 #50 #51 #53 TO: The Planning Commission FROM: The Los Gatos Commons and its Board of Directors DATE: December 6, 2017 Please accept this petition regarding the 405 Alberto Way project. It is signed by virtually all our residents. To: The Planning Commission From: Los Gatos Commons Date: December 6, 2017 utt_ / zo u TOWN OF LOS .~ ·· ...-,..,.-p ',. .. - LANNING D IV;~.~·,-.J· We request th.at you do not approve the Architectural Site and Conditional Use Permit Applications and the EIR for Redesign 3 of the 405 Alberto Way project. Instead, we support: A further reduction in square footage to be consistent with the Commission's decision in the August 26, 2016 hearing (less than 62,000 S.F.). Preservation and protection of the existing public view of the Santa Cruz Mountains· on the north corridor of the site. A one-story underground garage. . :·;' . .... ts::.·.·: ... .. . . . . . . . . :. . . .. ': ·. ·. ·.· .. . : . : .-·.: . : •·. ~. . :. . : ·.: .. : ... ·, .· .. ·.· :: .. · .. . ·.· .. ··:· .. · . .-:_-.; . To: The Planning Commission From: Los Gatos Commons Date: December 6, 2017 We request that you do not approve the Architectural Site and Conditional Use Permit Applications and the EIR for Redesign 3 of the 405 Alberto Way project. Instead, we support: A further reduction in square footage to be consistent with the Commission's decision in the August 26, 2016 hearing (less than 62,000 S.F .). Preservation and protection of the existing public view of the Santa Cruz Mountains on the north corridor of the site. A one-story underground garage. LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO DENY APPROVAL OF REDESIGN 3 Date Name Signature Unit# Address B \\l\_ /JI/ To: The Planning Commission From: Los Gatos Commons Date: December 6, 2017 We request that you do not approve the Architectural Site and Conditional Use Permit Applications and the EIR for Redesign 3 of the 405 Alberto Way project. Instead, we support: A further reduction in square footage to be consistent with the Commission's decision in the August 26, 2016 hearing (less than 62,000 S.F.). Preservation and protection of the existing public view of the Santa Cruz Mountains on the north corridor of the site. A one-story underground garage. LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO DENY APPROVAL OF REDESIGN 3 Date Name Signature Unit# Address ~'ltJf-~ \./ ~ 'i~ ~ ~"' ~' -- ~ A\bw"to 'Wy " t '. " '1f 0 ,_.,.~ lA/ /1- <!lO 1 e.. l ~be,, ,,, 13?C. I/ / '3 2..-<! I c.. t. 12.. C..Z.32 c To: The Planning Commission From: Los Gatos Commons Date: December 6, 2017 We request that you do not approve the Architectural Site and Conditional Use Permit Applications and the EIR for Redesign 3 of the 405 Alberto Way project. Instead, we support: A further reduction in square footage to be consistent with the Commission's decision in the August 26, 2016 hearing· (less than 62,000 S.F.). Preservation and protection of the existing public view of the Santa Cruz Mountains on the north corridor of the site. A one-story underground garage. LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO DENY APPROVAL OF REDESIGN 3 Date Name Signature Unit# Address L {) /"e tt-"\.. "F w \-er z. 't ~ lj 'S' I Mb~~ w~-. 1-+--~-+--~-r._.,,_~_~_.__-YI_-. ,,_~_/--t---'"---=--~----t-~-'l_i __ 1-__ f S/ Cl~.b-~"h M :f:r:-(t~c,,5 -s 1 ~ 451 I 04f-b · ' t-----+--------+--------+------+-----------i ·2s1. JSi. 2 )-.3 ' . I W~;y~ l lf ~ l 'it:t I.[ .. w,i, u LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO DENY APPROVAL OF REDESIGN 3 Date Name Signature Unit# Address ' •· , -,. ~ .. l f}/1 ~ (olt;,~ K'tA!JM'S~' ~ ~ 1 1 t; i 2)4 , J ~ {tG, _y~/j ~ :(_ t./ ~ G1 Oc< V\.R>~ ; . ( ~ • .-,. I 12/l{ }?, ;ii e, J/z/1111: ~ RVA II / ~S'O . . / ~·· ~ ~ -, ,,/_ ,[; --~.,,,._. i':'!i •/' -.. . ~ .... ~-.. • ...I ,, • • . .. , , " , / ~ . - .. --' . ,• To: The Planning Commission From: Los Gatos Commons Date: December 6, 2017 We request that you do not approve the Architectural Site and Conditional Use Permit Applications and the EIR for Redesign 3 of the 405 Alberto Way project. Instead, we support: A further reduction in square footage to be consistent with the Commission's decision in the August 26, 2016 hearing (less than 62,000 S.F.). Preservation and protection of the existing public view of the Santa Cruz Mountains on the north corridor of the site. A one-story. underground garage. Date LOS GATOS COMMONS PETITION TO DENY APPROVAL OF REDESIGN 3 Name Signature Unit# Address To: Planning Commission From: The Los Gatos Commons Date: December 6, 2017 Subject: Environmental Impact Report We are writing to object to some of the conclusions and mitigations in the DEIR . AESTHETICS RECEIVED Utt; -l 20 f7 TOWN OF LO S G ATOS PLANNING DIVISION IMPACT: The Proposed Project would have an adve r se effect on a scenic vista (Less than Significant). The report states (3-9-10) that the ex isting office buildings and tree cover partially obstruct existing views of the Santa Cruz Mountains and ridgelines from adjacent residential properties. And, the proposed project elevations do not obstr uct ridgeline views more than existing buildings. Moreover, the DEIR concluded that the proposed plantings at maturity would partially obscure views ·of the mountains from the· surrounding locations but the views "would be similar to existing obstructions on the site." These conclusions are erroneous, as first-hand observations and photos show. With the existing buildings we have a beautiful unimpeded view of hillsides and a large mountain (including the peak) on the north side of the property. On the south side we have a narrower view corridor of hillsides and mountains. The proposed project does have a significant adverse effect on a scenic vista. The mitigation for that is a sufficient setback of the proposed building(s) to protect the existing view from the north corridor. IMPACT: The Proposed Project would change the visual character of the project site (less than significant). The report states (3-11-13) that the increase of 61,800 sq. ft. of commercial space on the project site {currently with three buildings totaling 31,000 sq. ft.) is in compliance with General Plan policies and the Commercial Design Guidelines. No specific guidelines (such as COG 1.4) are addressed and General Plan policies regarding the relationsh i p of the proposed commercial building to the existing residential neighborhood are Ignored . Instead, compliance with the height, setback, and zon i ng requirements are .stressed. On September 10, 2015 the town consultant, Cannon Design Group, concluded that the project seemed "quite large in scale with not much effort made to blend into the context ...• " that is, the smaller scale buildings of the neighbors. "My feeling is that the scale and character of these buildings is not very suitable for this site." The applicant was advised to make the project "more sympathetic" to the surroundings. Subsequently, the applicant responded by making some changes to the roof line but not any significant reduction in size . This huge project stands out on the street as incompatible with the much smaller structures that are there and still lacks compliance with key components of the Commercial Design Guidelines 1.4 and several key Land Use policies. The appropriate mitigation is to reduce the size of the buildings. The largest site developments on Alberto Way are between 55,000 and 56,000 sq. ft. GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACT: The DEIR concludes (3-80-81) that the project site is exposed to the effects of liquefaction. It has the risk of soil instability due to deep excavation (for a two-level Underground garage). And the site has "moderately" expansive soils (which can cause cracking). The DEIR concludes that these impacts are less than significant with "mitigation." Mitigation is obtained by following the recommendations of ENGEO. These mitigations are not thoroughly discussed in Appendix C, and especially lacking Is any discussion of the possible effects on neighbori ng properties (SAF 1.11 requ i res the description of construction methods to protect the neighboring residences). CEQA requires the identification of adverse effects or "loss" (property loss). The proposed mitigations are not adequate to address potential damage to neighboring properties because ENGEO has not acknowledged that there could be any possible negative impacts on the residences near the proposed project. A one-level underground would have less significant impact. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC IMPACT: The Proposed Project would contribute to traffic which may conflict with applicable plans and policies regarding performance of the circulation system at a project level (less than significant with mitigation). The proposed mitigation is the restriping of Alberto Way to include a dedicated right- turn lane and a shared left-through lane (3-170, 175). The dedicated right-turn lane will be of little help with delays in the evening as traffic moves through the intersection onto the 17 ramp or HWY 9 going west. There will be ~ long wait as the project cars turn right onto Alberto Way and move toward the intersection. Vehicles leaving the offices at 475 and 485 will be in a queue behind them or vice versa. The residents of Alberto Way who may be trying to travel somewhere at that time also will be in the queue. And the dedicated right-turn lane will not help the traffic jams on Hwy 9; the project vehicles will add to that congestion. The best mitigation is fewer vehicles entering and exiting the Proposed Project. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED (DEIR6.2) The two alternatives are No Project-Existing Square Footage (construction not greater than 31,000 sq. ft.) and Reduced Project {74,260 sq. ft.). The CEQA Guidelines require a "reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation." Each alternative must be meaningfully evaluated, analyzed, and compared with the proposed project. The description of the Reduced Project is problematic. First, on 6-7-The Revised Project alternative considers the new development "reduced by approximately one·third of the proposed project's development," which could be 62,000 sq. ft. not 74,260 sq. ft. That inconsistency aside, according to Richard James of EMC Planning Group, the figure of 74,260 was "not a number determined by analysis," it was "just a number," "qualitative rather than quantitative" (personal communication to L. Fowler, 11/28/2'o17). The figure was arbitrary and not "objective." This was not "informed decision- making'' because there was no rationale for the particular square footage selected , based on conditions at the site or in the neighborhood or on the street. Also, p leas e note the letter from our attorney Rachel Mansfield-Howlett, May 4, 20 17. 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 jarmer@losgatosca.gov May4, 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 opinio~ 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 col;lsider 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) 221Cal.App.3d692.) 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 1of6 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 ETR 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 Asso ciation v. City Council (1983) 143Cal.App.3d1013, 1020; County of Inyo 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) 221Cal.App.3d692.) 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 2of6 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 lo 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. • ENGEO'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 Page3of6 repres~nts unnecessary and unreasonable risk to health 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 I 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 ,,......--··-~~~safety impacts . ....--· /'' . ) Al~~../ also failed to: consider a reasonable range of alternative s that ~:;tly reduce or avoid the Project's impacts; identify an environmental! su erior alt ative other than the No Project alternative, and; iden 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 re~ons why possible alternatives l"e~d infeasible and did not do so. (Laur el He~ssociation V:-UC R~el Heights I) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405.) The EIR failed to consider ~mate ·sites as required by both public and private development projects. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervi sor s (Goleta II) (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 574-575; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Sup ervisors (Gol eta 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; Residents AdHoc Stadium Committee v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274; Guideline §15126.6(c). The range must be sufficient "to perm.it a reasonable choice of alternative~ 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), (£). Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, envirorunental, social, technological, and legal factors. (Public Resources 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) 221Cal.App.3d692, 736.) H ere, 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) 91Cal.App.4th1344,1367 quoting Cleary v. County of Stanislaus, (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 348, 357.) Pages of6 For the foregoing reasons, and as articulated in the reports of Mr. Geissler, incorporated herein by reference, the EIR should not be certified as complete. Thank you for your consideration, Rachel Mansfield-Howlett P a g e 6of6 Jennifer Armer From: J Scott <gatosbella@gmail.com > Friday, December 08, 201711:00 AM Jennifer Armer Sent: To: Subject: 401 -409 Alberto Way Planning Commission : Thank you for the thoughtful analysis on the Alberto Way project. I ask that as we continue you keep these items in mind before approval is granted; 1. No underground garage on this site-the impact on the environment is simply not worth the risk, including flooding, seismic impact, and air quality. 2 . Pedestrian safety at Alberto Way & Highway 17 on ramps: require lighted crosswalks and striped crosswalks prior to construction 3 . Speed Humps needed along Alberto Way-speeding traffic is a big problem! 4 . Enforcement of Permit parking for residents only s. Require developer to lower the building height on north end of project to retain view 6. Require developer allow parking on site after 6 PM 7. Require a thorough plan of Highway 9/ Alberto Way traffic impact before project begins. Thank you, Jannette Scott 420 Alberto Way My name is Thomas Dunn and I live at 420 Alberto Way. I have lived in LG for over 40 years. We're not opposed to some development at this proposed site but there are several issues that still create problems. First, the size of the new revised plan is still too large and massive and the 2 story underground parking garage would not be needed if the number of potential employees were reduced based on size of the building. Second the amount of ne\111 cars coming and going onto Alberto way. The proposed development could bring 350 to 400 cars every day up and down our street. This creates a safety hazard for both the existing residence trying to get their car into and out of our driveways and the pedestrians having to always be aware of cars speeding up and down the street and turning in and out of.the building. Third with parking spaces being removed from our street creates a problem for the residence of where they can now park their car. We only have one designated parking spot on our complex so our other car has to use the street. That will be gone. The proposed bike lane will create a safety hazard to bicyclists because it's designed to be between 2 lanes of cars. Now you have twice the risk. Our children who ride their bikes to school would have greater risk of injury trying to maneuverer between hundreds of cars now on Alberto way. The planning commission denied this project twice and the last time it was a unanimous decision. That tells it all. No one, the town or the residents, wants this size project built. I encourage you to deny this appeal to not move forward with this project DRAWING INDEX AND ISSUE DATESLANDSCAPEL0.1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANL0.2 ENLARGEMENT PLANL0.3 SITE SECTIONSL0.3a SITE SECTIONSL0.4 PAVING MATERIALSL0.5 LOW LEVEL LANDSCAPE MOOD LIGHTINGL0.6 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANL0.6a PLANT IMAGESL0.7 EXISTING TREE PLANL0.8 PRELIMINARY IRRIGATION PLANCIVILC1.0 TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEYC2.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PLANC3.0 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CALCULATIONAND NOTESC3.1 PRELIMINARY DETAILSC4.0 PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLANC4.1 PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL NOTES & DETAILSC5.0 PRELIMINARY EXCAVATION PLANC6.0 DETAILSA Planning Application For:405 ALBERTO WAYLOS GATOS, CA 95032PRELIMINARY OR PRICING PLANSFIRST FORMAL SUBMITTAL OR NO CHANGESSINCE PREVIOUS ISSUEMODIFICATIONS SINCE PREVIOUS ISSUEPROJECT NUMBER:DATE: 11/17/17 PRINTED BY: Paul Crotty PAGESETUP: DWG TO PDF PEN SETTING: ARCTEC.ctbPATH: P:\2015 JOBS\153948 401-409 ALBERTO WAY\01-PLANNING APPLICATION\2017-1107-6TH PA SUBMITTAL\153948-A0000.DWG A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032153948 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONTHIS IS A NEW CAMPUS WITH A 2-STORY WARM SHELL OFFICE BUILDING WITH A 2-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE BELOWGRADE. SCOPE OF WORK SHALL INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING SHELL AND CORE AS WELL AS SITEIMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS SIDEWALKS, CURB/GUTTER, BICYCLE RACKS, STREET TREES, ETC.2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CCR TITLE 24, PART 2)2013 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC CODE (CCR TITLE 24, PART 3)2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CCR TITLE 24, PART 4)2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CCR TITLE 24, PART 5)2010 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CCR TITLE 24, PART 6)2013 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CCR TITLE 24, PART 9)2013 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CCR TITLE 24, PART 11)ALL CODES ARE SUBJECT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTS PER CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSIONBULLETIN 10-03.ALL CONSTRUCTION SITES MUST COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CFC CHAPTER 33 AND THE TOWN OF LOSGATOS STANDARD DETAIL AND SPECIFICATION S107.APPLICABLE CODESPROJECT TEAMPHONE:CONTACT:EMAIL:LANDSCAPEARCHITECT:KLA, INC.151 N. Norlin StreetSonora, CA 95370209.532.2856Tom Hollowaytom@knoxla.comOWNER:PHONE:CONTACT:EMAIL:LP ACQUISITIONS, LLC ('LP')535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190Menlo Park, CA 94025650.326.1600Shane Artersshane@lambpartners.comPHONE:CONTACT:EMAIL:ARCHITECT: ARC TEC INC.99 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 840San Jose, CA 95113408.496.0676Dan Kirbydank@arctecinc.comPHONE:CONTACT:EMAIL:CIVILENGINEER:KIER & WRIGHT3350 Scott Blvd., Building 22Santa Clara, CA 95054408.727.6665Mark Knudsenmknudsen@kierwright.comVICINITY MAPSITEWOODLAND AVE17 1717WRIAGHT AVE BIR D A V E UNIVERSITY AVEBOWER LANEL O S G A T O S C R E E K LOS GATOS CREEK LOS G A T O S C R E E K T R A I L LOS GATOS CREEK TRAIL LOS GATOS SARATOGA ROADLOS GATOS SARATOGA ROADALB E R T O W A Y BELLA VISTA AVEMAGGI CTCALDWELL AVEBEL L A V I S T A A V E LO S G A T O S B L V D 99OWNER NAME:PROJECT ADDRESS:PROJECT DATALP ACQUISITIONS, LLC (LP)405 ALBERTO WAYLOS GATOS, CA 95032BUILDING AREA:NUMBER OF STORIES:CONSTRUCTION TYPE:FIRE SPRINKLERS:OCCUPANCY TYPE:74,260 S.F.2II-AYESB405 ALBERTO WAYBUILDING AREA:NUMBER OF STORIES:CONSTRUCTION TYPE:FIRE SPRINKLERS:OCCUPANCY TYPE:112,520 S.F.2 (BELOW GRADE)I-BYESS-2GARAGEVIEW FROM ALBERTO WAY, SEE A0.01DRAWING INDEX AND ISSUE DATESCOVER SHEETARCHITECTURALA0.01 EXTERIOR RENDERINGSA0.02 EXTERIOR RENDERINGSA0.03 EXTERIOR RENDERINGSA1.00 EXISTING AND PROPOSED REDESIGN SITE PLANA1.01 SITE PLANA1.02 SITE AND EXTERIOR DETAILSA1.11 SITE CONTEXT PHOTOSA1.12 SHADOW STUDIESA2.11 FIRST FLOOR PLANA2.12 SECOND FLOOR PLANA2.31 ROOF PLANA3.01 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.02 RENDERED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.03 PREVIOUS EXTERIOR ELEVATION DESIGN COMPARISONA4.01 SITE CONTEXT SECTIONSA4.02 SITE CONTEXT SECTIONSAP2.11 PARKING LEVEL -1AP2.12 PARKING LEVEL -2ISSUE DATES AND DESCRIPTIONS05.15.15 PRELIM. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 07.23.15 PLANNING DEPT. SUBMITTAL 10.05.15 PLANNING DEPT. RESUBMITTAL 02.05.16 PLANNING DEPT. RESUBMITTAL 02.19.16 PLANNING DEPT. RESUBMITTAL 02.01.17 PLANNING DEPT. RESUBMITTAL 03.09.17 PLANNING DEPT. RESUBMITTAL 11.07.17 PLANNING DEPT. RESUBMITTAL PRELIMINARY OR PRICING PLANSFIRST FORMAL SUBMITTAL OR NO CHANGESSINCE PREVIOUS ISSUEMODIFICATIONS SINCE PREVIOUS ISSUEISSUE DATES AND DESCRIPTIONS05.15.15 PRELIM. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 07.23.15 PLANNING DEPT. SUBMITTAL 10.05.15 PLANNING DEPT. RESUBMITTAL 02.05.16 PLANNING DEPT. RESUBMITTAL 02.19.16 PLANNING DEPT. RESUBMITTAL 02.08.17 PLANNING DEPT. RESUBMITTAL 03.09.17 PLANNING DEPT. RESUBMITTAL 11.07.17 PLANNING DEPT. RESUBMITTAL 11.17.17.PLANNING DEPT.RESUBMITTAL 11.17.17.PLANNING DEPT.RESUBMITTAL EXHIBIT 14 NOPARKINGDNSTOPNOPARKING1, 2A0.031, 2, 3A0.02ALBERTO WAYSARATOGA LOS GATOS ROAD1, 2, 3A0.01PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A001-A002.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 9:58am - danielg The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALEXTERIOR RENDERINGSA0.01SCALE: 4REFERENCE SITE PLAN1" = 60'-0"NORTHSCALE: 3VIEW FROM NORTHEAST OF SITE - TREES SCREENEDN.T.S.SCALE: 2VIEW FROM NORTHEAST OF SITE - TREES AT FIVE-YEAR GROWTHN.T.S.SCALE: 1VIEW FROM NORTHEAST OF SITE - TREES AT INITIAL BUILD-OUTN.T.S. NOPARKINGDNSTOPNOPARKING1, 2A0.031, 2, 3A0.02ALBERTO WAYSARATOGA LOS GATOS ROAD1, 2, 3A0.01PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A001-A002.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 9:58am - danielg The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALEXTERIOR RENDERINGSA0.02SCALE: 4REFERENCE SITE PLAN1" = 60'-0"NORTHSCALE: 3VIEW FROM EAST OF SITE - TREES SCREENEDN.T.S.SCALE: 2VIEW FROM EAST OF SITE - TREES AT FIVE-YEAR GROWTHN.T.S.SCALE: 1VIEW FROM EAST OF SITE - TREES AT INITIAL BUILD-OUTN.T.S. NOPARKINGDNSTOPNOPARKING1, 2A0.031, 2, 3A0.02ALBERTO WAYSARATOGA LOS GATOS ROAD1, 2, 3A0.01PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A001-A002.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 10:01am - danielg The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALEXTERIOR RENDERINGSA0.03SCALE: 4REFERENCE SITE PLAN1" = 60'-0"NORTHSCALE: 2VIEW FROM EAST OF SITE - TREES AT FIVE-YEAR GROWTHN.T.S.SCALE: 1VIEW FROM EAST OF SITE - CURRENT CONDITIONSN.T.S. 401 ALBERTO WAYONE STORY BUILDINGWITH BASEMENT409 ALBERTO WAYONE STORY BUILDINGWITH BASEMENT405 ALBERTO WAYONE STORY BUILDINGWITH BASEMENT1111133322222ALBERTO WAYSARATOGA LOS GATOS ROAD4 4NOPARKINGDNSTOPNOPARKINGALBERTO WAYSARATOGA LOS GATOS ROAD12'-1"63'-0" 11'-9" 86'-4" 113'-1" 134'-3" 125'-8" 115'-10"87'-10"107'-4"3311112222444477'-0" TO PROPOSED BELOW GRADE PARKING STRUCTURE65 615'-0"55'-7"15'-0" 15'-6"15'-0"16'-2"2'-9" 3'-1" 3'-6"88877777PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A100.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 8:13am - pcrotty The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALEXISTING AND PROPOSEDREDESIGN SITE PLANA1.00PROJECT DATA COMPARISON .ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:APN 529-23-018ZONING:CH - RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL HIGHWAYSITE AREA:93,573 S.F. / 2.15 ACRESORIGINAL DESIGNBUILDING '401' FOOTPRINT:22,500 S.F.BUILDING '405' FOOTPRINT:23,900 S.F.TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA:46,400 S.F.SITE COVERAGE:46,400 S.F. / 93,573 S.F. = 49.6%BUILDING '401' AREA:FLOOR 122,500 S.F.FLOOR 221,915 S.F.TOTAL AREA44,415 S.F.BUILDING '405' AREA:FLOOR 123,900 S.F.FLOOR 223,650 S.F.TOTAL AREA 47,550 S.F.TOTAL BUILDING AREA:91,965 S.F.FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)91,965 S.F. / 93,573 S.F. = 98%PARKING PROVIDED - GRADE LEVEL7 SPACESPARKING PROVIDED - UNDERGROUND PARKING383 SPACESTOTAL PARKING PROVIDED390 SPACESPREVIOUS REDESIGNBUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA:42,400 S.F.SITE COVERAGE:42,400 S.F. / 93,573 S.F. = 45.3%FIRST FLOOR AREA42,400 S.F.SECOND FLOOR AREA40,600 S.F.TOTAL BUILDING AREA:83,000 S.F.FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)83,000 S.F. / 93,573 S.F. = 89%PARKING PROVIDED - GRADE LEVEL42 SPACESPARKING PROVIDED - UNDERGROUND PARKING290 SPACESTOTAL PARKING PROVIDED332 SPACESPROPOSED REDESIGNBUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA:38,392 S.F.SITE COVERAGE:38,392 S.F. / 93,573 S.F. = 41.0%FIRST FLOOR AREA38,392 S.F.SECOND FLOOR AREA35,868 S.F.TOTAL BUILDING AREA:74,260 S.F.FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)74,260 S.F. / 93,573 S.F. = 79%PARKING PROVIDED - GRADE LEVEL38 SPACESPARKING PROVIDED - UNDERGROUND PARKING260 SPACESTOTAL PARKING PROVIDED298 SPACESDESIGN COMPARISONBUILDING FOOTPRINT DELTA (38,392 S.F. - 46,400 S.F.)-8,008 S.F.TOTAL BUILDING AREA DELTA (74,260 S.F. - 91,965 S.F.)-17,705 S.F.FAR COMPARISON (89%-98%)-19%PARKING PROVIDED-GRADE LEVEL DELTA (38-7 SPACES)+31 SPACESPARKING PROVIDED-UNDERGROUND PARKING DELTA (260-383 SPACES)-123 SPACESTOTAL PARKING PROVIDED (298-390 SPACES)-92 SPACESPREVIOUS DESIGN BUILDING FOOTPRINT1PREVIOUS DESIGN PARKING GARAGE FOOTPRINT BELOW GRADE2PROPOSED DESIGN BUILDING FOOTPRINT SHOWN SHADEDPROPOSED DESIGN PARKING GARAGE FOOTPRINT BELOW GRADESHOWN SHADED34KEYNOTES - PREVIOUS DESIGN.NOTE: NOT ALL KEYNOTES LISTED MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.1EXISTING SITE PLANNORTH 0'15'30'60'SCALE: 1"=30'-0"2PROPOSED REDESIGN SITE PLAN COMPARISONNORTH EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED1EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO BE REMOVED2EXISTING PAVING AND STRIPING TO BE REMOVED3KEYNOTES - DEMOLITION .NOTE: NOT ALL KEYNOTES LISTED MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.EXISTING CURB AND SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED FOR BIKE LANE ADDITION4LOCATION OF EXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVED5LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE6REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK (25'-0" FRONT REQUIRED SETBACK FORPROPERTIES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL SITES AND 15'-0" FRONTREQUIRED SETBACK FOR PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL;15'-0" REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR SETBACK)7PROPOSED DEDICATION TO TOWN FOR ROAD WIDENING8ORIGINAL DESIGN -401 ALBERTO WAY BUILDINGFOOTPRINT SHOWN DASHEDORIGINAL DESIGN -405 ALBERTO WAY BUILDINGFOOTPRINT SHOWN DASHEDPREVIOUS REDESIGN -405 ALBERTO WAY BUILDINGFOOTPRINT SHOWN DASHED IN BLUEPROPOSED REDESIGN -405 ALBERTO WAY BUILDINGFOOTPRINT SHOWN SHADED IN GRAY FIRST LEVELF.F. 336'-6"NOPARKINGDNSTOPNOPARKING9891216'-0"HWY 17 OFF RAMP4A1.021A1.02STAIR FROM SECONDLEVEL TO LEVEL P-2EGRESS STAIR FROMSECOND LEVELWOMEN'SMEN'SSHOWERS& LOCKERS14T405 ALBERTO WAYALBERTO WAYSARATOGA LOS GATOS ROAD HWY 17 ON RAMPSTAIR FROM SECONDLEVEL TO LEVEL P-2ELEVATORSLOBBYOFFICEOFFICE14112233334456788899999109101113131313131313131515151617171717181826'-0"26'-0"16'-0" 26'-0" 16'-0" 10'-0"10A4.029A4.0111A4.0110A4.019A4.0125 MPHSPEED LIMIT35 MPHSPEED LIMITCALTRANS R.O.W.65'-0" (VARIES)CALTRANS R.O.W.48'-0" (VARIES)36'-0"26'-0"250'-0"ELEC. ROOM5'-0" 4'-6" 41'-0" ROAD W A Y 1910'-0" 5'-0" 10'-0" 63'-0" R.O.W. 5'-0" 7'-0" 6" 15'-6"16'-2"55'-7"15'-0"2125'-0"124212115'-0"15'-0"15'-0"73720PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A101.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 8:13am - pcrotty The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15 PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALSITE PLANA1.011SITE PLANNORTH PARKING ANALYSIS.TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED PER LOS GATOS MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 29 -ARTICLE I, DIVISION 4GROSS AREA IS DEFINED AS THE TOTAL HORIZONTAL FLOOR AREA IN SQUARE FEETOF ALL STORIES OF ALL BUILDINGS MEASURED TO THE OUTSIDE SURFACE OFEXTERIOR WALLS. STAIRWAYS AND ELEVATOR SHAFTS SHALL BE INCLUDED ON ALLFLOORSPARKING REQUIRED (SEC. 29.10.145)74,260 / 250 = 298 SPACESPARKING PROVIDED - GRADE LEVELSTANDARD PARKING PROVIDED34 SPACESACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED3 SPACESVAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED1 SPACESPARKING PROVIDED - PARKING LEVEL P-1STANDARD PARKING PROVIDED134 SPACESACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED2 SPACESVAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED1 SPACESPARKING PROVIDED - PARKING LEVEL P-2STANDARD PARKING PROVIDED 123 SPACESTOTAL PARKING PROVIDED298 SPACESAUTOMOBILE PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS (TABLE 3-2)STALL TYPE WIDTH DEPTH COMPLIANTUNISTALL8'-6" 18'-0"YESREQUIRED NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS (CBC TABLE 11B-208.2)201-3007COMPLIANTMINIMUM REQUIREDTOTAL PARKING SPACESYESPROJECT DATA.ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:APN 529-23-018ZONING:CH - RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL HIGHWAYSITE AREA:93,573 S.F. / 2.15 ACRESBUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA:38,392 S.F.SITE COVERAGE:38,392 S.F. / 93,573 S.F. = 41%FIRST FLOOR AREA38,392 S.F.SECOND FLOOR AREA35,868 S.F.TOTAL BUILDING AREA:74,260 S.F.FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)74,260 S.F. / 93,573 S.F. = 79%PAVED PARKING AND DRIVES, REFER TO CIVIL AND LANDSCAPEDRAWINGS1LANDSCAPE AREA, REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGSRETAINING WALL266" CURB, TYP.ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL SHOWN DASHEDTRASH ENCLOSURE PER LOS GATOS ZONING CODE SEC. 29.10.09010345KEYNOTES.NOTE: NOT ALL KEYNOTES LISTED MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.AMENITY SPACE7LINE OF PARKING GARAGE BELOW SHOWN DASHED8PROPERTY LINE SHOWN DASHED9EXISTING 6'-0" CMU WALL AT EDGE OF PROPERTY TO REMAIN1011RAMP TO PARKING LEVEL P-112TOTAL BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED PER CALGREEN SECTION 5.106.4SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING*REQUIRED: 5% OF 298 PARKING SPACES = 14.915 SPACESPROVIDED:18 SPACESLONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING**REQUIRED: 5% OF 298 PARKING SPACES = 14.915 SPACESPROVIDED:18 SPACES* SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING TO BE PERMANENTLY ANCHOREDWITHIN 200 FEET OF THE VISITOR'S ENTRANCE**LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING TO BE COVERED AND LOCKABLE WITHPERMANENTLY ANCHORED RACKS FOR BICYCLES14NEIGHBORING BUILDING SHOWN SHADED15REQUIRED NUMBER OF LOW-EMITTING, FUEL-EFFICIENT AND201 AND OVER8% OF TOTAL = 24COMPLIANTMINIMUM REQUIREDTOTAL PARKING SPACESCARPOOL/VAN PARKING STALLS (CALGREEN TABLE 5.106.5.2)YES17LINE OF BALCONY ABOVE16ROOF DRAIN AND OVERFLOW DISCHARGE TO PLANTER AT GROUNDFLOOR FOR STORM WATER FILTRATION; REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS18PROPOSED BIKE LANESHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING0' 15' 30'60'SCALE: 1"=30'-0"EXISTING SIDEWALKSYMBOLS LEGEND .NOTE: NOT ALL SYMBOLS LISTED MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.TRAFFIC SIGNALTRANSFORMERTSTREET LIGHTFIRE HYDRANTREQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK (25'-0" FRONT REQUIRED SETBACK FORPROPERTIES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL SITES AND 15'-0" FRONTREQUIRED SETBACK FOR PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL; 15'-0"REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR SETBACK)CATCH BASIN2DRIVEWAY AND CORNER SITE TRIANGLES PER AASHTO STANDARDS (AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS)NORTH SIDEWALK (SHOWN SHADED) WITH 4'-0" LANDSCAPE BUFFERRAISED MEDIAN131920PROPOSED BIKE BOX21 SCALE: TRASH ENCLOSURE -EAST ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE: TRASH ENCLOSURE - NORTH ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE: TRASH ENCLOSURE1/4" = 1'-0"3-2-6'-0" 6'-0"ENTRY DRIVEENTRY DRIVE ACCESS20'-0"12'-0"DRILL CONCRETE AT CLOSEDPOSITION AND AT OPEN 180d. TOACCEPT CANE BOLTS, TYP.WASTE BINRECYCLE BIN6" CONCRETECURBENTRY DRIVE 6"STUCCO PAINTED TO MATCHP2-FIELD PAINTSTUCCO PAINTED TO MATCHP2-FIELD PAINT6" CURB6" CURB1/8" THICK PANELS WITH 2" X 4"TUBE STEEL FRAME GATECORNICE PAINTED TO MATCH P1 PAINTCORNICE PAINTED TO MATCH P1 PAINT9' MIN.5'MIN.9' MIN.9' MIN.5'MIN.18' MIN.9' MIN.12' MIN.5'MIN.5'VANPARKING COMPLIANCE NOTES1. WHEN NO CURB OR BARRIER ISPROVIDED, A WHEEL STOP IS REQUIREDWHICH WILL PREVENT ENCROACHMENTOF CARS OVER WALKWAYS.2.WHEELCHAIR USERS MUST NOT BEFORCED TO GO BEHIND PARKED CARSOTHER THAN THEIR OWN.3.ALL WALKS AND PARKING SPACES SHALLHAVE A MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 1:48.4.PEDESTRIAN WAYS WHICH AREACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITHDISABILITIES SHALL BE PROVIDED FROMEACH ACCESSIBLE SPACE TO RELATEDFACILITIES.ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN SEE 9/-LEVEL LANDING; 1:48 MAX. CROSS-SLOPE; FLUSH WITH DRIVE6" CONCRETE WHEEL STOP TYP.2'CURB RAMP WITH 1:12 MAX SLOPEMIN. WIDTH CONCRETE WALKWAY3" WIDE DIAGONAL STRIPING, WHITE OR BLUEACCESSIBLE PARKING SYMBOL 36" SQ. SEE 5/-SIGN TYPE BABCSTRIPING FOR SINGLE STANDARDACCESSIBLE PARKINGSTRIPING FOR STANDARDACCESSIBLE PARKINGSTRIPING FOR VANACCESSIBLE PARKING18' MIN.5' 18' MIN.5' 2'3'3'3'TYPICAL NOTES:12" HIGH WHITE LETTERING IN ACCESS AISLESIGN TYPE A6' MIN.3" WIDE BLUE STRIPING ATPERIMETER OF ACCESS AISLESCALE: ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES1/16"=1'-0"3'6' MIN.RAMPDN.VAN PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE 108 INCHES (9'-0")WIDE MINIMUM WHERE THE ACCESS AISLE IS 96" (8'-0") WIDE MINIMUMSIGN TYPE ARAMPDN.RAMPDN.RAMPDN.RAMPDN.RAMPDN.3'-0"3'-0"NOTE:THE CENTERLINE OF THE SYMBOL SHALLBE A MAXIMUM OF 6" FROM THECENTERLINE OF THE PARKING SPACE,IT'S SIDES PARALLEL TO THE LENGTH OFTHE STALL AND ITS LOWER CORNER AT,OR LOWER SIDE ALIGNED WITH, THE ENDOF THE PARKING STALL (CBC11B-502.6.4.1)PAINT SYMBOL WITH TWO COATS HEAVYDUTY WHITE TRAFFIC PAINTBACKGROUND TO BE TWO COATS HEAVYDUTY BLUE TRAFFIC PAINTSCALE: ACCESSIBILITY PARKING SYMBOLN.T.S.UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLESPARKED IN DESIGNATEDACCESSIBLE SPACES NOTDISPLAYING DISTINGUISHINGPLACARDS OR SPECIALLICENSE PLATES ISSUEDFOR PERSONS WITHDISABILITIES WILL BE TOWEDAWAY AT OWNERS EXPENSE.TOWED VEHICLESMAY BE RECLAIMED ATOR BY TELEPHONINGSCALE: ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNAGE & UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLE SIGNAGE1 1/2"=1'-0"SIGN TYPE A:ACCESSIBLE CAR PARKINGSPACE IDENTIFICATIONSIGN TYPE B:ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKINGSPACE IDENTIFICATIONSIGN TYPE C:UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLEWARNING SIGNACCESSIBLE PARKING IDENTIFICATIONSIGNAGE1.REFLECTORIZED SIGN SHALL BECONSTRUCTED OF PORCELAIN STEELWITH BEADED TEXT OR EQUAL2.LETTERS AND SYMBOLS TO BE WHITEON A DARK BLUE BACKGROUND3.SIGN TO BE CENTERED AT THEINTERIOR END OF PARKING SPACE4.CORNERS OF SIGN TO BE RADIUSED1/2" MINIMUM.THIS PORTION OF SIGN TOBE 70 SQUARE INCHESMINIMUM (TYPICAL)BOTTOM OF SIGNAGE:WHEN SIGN IS LOCATED IN A PATH OFTRAVEL, BOTTOM OF SIGN SHALL BE AMINIMUM OF 6'-8" ABOVE THE WALKINGSURFACE.WHEN LOCATED IN A LANDSCAPE AREAOR ON A WALL AT THE END OF THESPACE, THE BOTTOM OF SIGN SHALL BEAT 5'-0" ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE17" MINIMUM24" RECOMMENDED22" MINIMUM 24" RECOMMENDED UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLE WARNINGSIGNAGE1A.MUST BE POSTED CONSPICUOUSLY ATEACH ENTRANCE TO OFF-STREETPARKING FACILITIES, OR1B.POSTED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TOAND VISIBLE FROM EACH ACCESSIBLESTALL OR SPACE.2.THE PHONE NUMBER OR ADDRESSWHERE TOWED VEHICLES CAN BERECLAIMED IS POSTED IN THEAPPROPRIATE LOCATION ON THE SIGNAND IS A PERMANENT PART OF THESIGN.3.THE SIZE OF THE LETTERING IS AMINIMUM OF 1" IN HEIGHT.INSERT ADDRESSINSERT TELEPHONE NUMBERPROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A102.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 8:14am - pcrotty The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALSITE AND EXTERIOR DETAILSA1.021234569G1GLAZINGP1LIMESTONE FINISHSTONE TILEP2S1P4P5CLAY ROOF TILET1P3MATERIAL PALETTEG1GLAZINGMANUFACTURER:VIRACONTYPE:LOW TINTMULLIONS:BRONZEP1PAINT OVER STUCCO FINISHMANUFACTURER:DUNN EDWARDSCOLOR:DEC752 BIRCHWOODS1LIMESTONE TILEMANUFACTURER:ARIZONA TILETYPE:ROCAS AZULSIZE:12"X24"P2PAINT OVER STUCCO FINISHMANUFACTURER:DUNN EDWARDSCOLOR:DET692 KILN DRIEDP3PAINT OVER STUCCO FINISHMANUFACTURER:DUNN EDWARDSCOLOR:DET625 RECLAIMED WOODP4PAINT OVER STUCCO FINISHMANUFACTURER:DUNN EDWARDSCOLOR:DE6376 LOOKING GLASST1CLAY ROOF TILEMANUFACTURER:BORAL ROOFINGTYPE:1-PIECE CLAYLITECOLOR:MERLOT BLENDP5LIMESTONE FINISH TO MATCHMANUFACTURER:DUNN EDWARDSCOLOR:DET600 DOLPHIN TALESPAINTPAINTPAINTPAINTSCALE: PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIAL PALETTE - SEE A3.02 FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONN.T.S.11REFER TO DETAIL 12/A3.01 FOR EXTERIORWALL SCONCE DETAILSTRELLISCORNICE NOPARKINGDNSTOPNOPARKING12345678109PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A111.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 8:14am - pcrotty The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALSITE CONTEXT PHOTOSA1.11SCALE: 3REFERENCE SITE PLAN1" = 60'-0"NORTH1PUEBLO DE LOS GATOS 2 STORY TOWNHOUSE COMPLEXSATELLITE HEALTHCARE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGBEST WESTERN 2 STORY HOTEL WITH ELEVATED LOBBYLOS GATOS LODGESARATOGA LOS GATOS ROADHIGHWAY 17 ON-RAMPLOS GATOS LODGEGRILL 57 RESTAURANTLAS CASITAS TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX2365478109PUEBLO DE LOS GATOS 3 STORY TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A112.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 8:14am - pcrotty The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALSHADOW STUDIESA1.12SCALE: 11AUTUMN 12 P.M.N.T.S.SCALE: 10AUTUMN 9 A.M.N.T.S.SCALE: 12AUTUMN 4 P.M.N.T.S.SCALE: 5SPRING 12 P.M.N.T.S.SCALE: 4SPRING 9 A.M.N.T.S.SCALE: 6SPRING 4 P.M.N.T.S.SCALE: 3SUMMER 4 P.M.N.T.S.SCALE: 1SUMMER 9 A.M.N.T.S.SCALE: 2SUMMER 12 P.M.N.T.S.SCALE: 8WINTER 12 P.M.N.T.S.SCALE: 7WINTER 9 A.M.N.T.S.SCALE: 9WINTER 4 P.M.N.T.S. 10987654321ABCDEFG121110330'-0"21'-6"25'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"166'-4"16'-4"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"15'-0"30'-0"15'-0"E.512.11.32.25'-0"8'-6"FIRST LEVELF.F. 336'-6"LOBBY100ELEVLOBBY101MEN'S105WOMEN'S103SHOWER104SHOWER106STAIR #1102STAIR #2107STAIR #3108ELEC RM1091A3.014A3.012A3.0111A3.013A3.0111114'-8"3'-6"8'-3"3'-6"11'-6"3'-6"11'-6"3'-6"11'-6"3'-6"8'-3"11'-6"6'-1"6'-0"6'-6"6'-0"11'-6"11'-6"3'-6"3'-6"4'-8"4'-3"4'-4"4'-8"3'-6"11'-6"3'-6"11'-6"7'-0"9'-5"4'-0"9'-5"4'-0"6'-6"4'-0"6'-6"4'-0"6'-6"4'-2"4'-10"9'-5"3'-10"9'-5"8'-0"11'-6"3'-6"11'- 6 " 3' - 6 " 1 1 ' - 6 " 3' - 6 " 1 1 ' - 6 " 3' - 7 "4'-0"11'-6"4'-0"11'-6"4'-0"8'-3"7'-10"6'-6"5'-2"9'-5"5'-7"9'-5"5'-7"9'-5"6'-0"6'-6"3'-8"6'-6"3'-8"6'-6"6'-0"9'-5"5'-7"9'-5"5'-7"6'-6"6'-6"11'-6"3'-6"11'-6"3'-6"5'-9"5'-2"11'-6"3'-6"11'-6"3'-6"11'-6"11'-6"5'-4"9'-8"3'-6"11'-6"3'-6"11'-6"3'-6"11'-6"4'-8"2'-7"12'-6"6'-5"4'-5"2'-11"5'-6"10'-8"5'-3"8'-3"3'-6" 8'-5" 11'-6" 3'-6" 11'-6" 3'-6" 11'-6" 6'-2" 9'-5" 3'-10" 6'-6" 3'-9" 6'-6" 3'-9" 6'-6" 3'-10" 9'-5" 6'-2" 11'-6" 5'-9"2223TYP.3TYP.3TYP.22473'-0" 3'-0" 3'-8" 3'-0" 1'-0" 2'-0"2'-8"3'-0"6"3'-0" 1'-8"2'-0"3'-0"6"2'-0"3'-0"101010118'-3"6'-5"4'-5"3'-6"PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A211.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 8:14am - pcrotty The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALFIRST FLOOR PLANA2.11KEY NOTES .NOT ALL KEYNOTES MAY APPLY123EXTERIOR GLAZING SYSTEM; SEE BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR DETAILED DESCRIPTIONEDGE OF BALCONY AND WROUGHT IRON GUARDRAILEXTERIOR WALL; SEE BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR DETAILED DESCRIPTION456ENTRY DOORS7STRUCTURAL CONCRETE COLUMNMECHANICAL SHAFTLINE OF MANSARD ROOF ABOVE8ROOF ACCESS LADDER9EDGE OF BALCONY AND MANSARD ROOFTRELLIS ABOVE10LINES OF CANOPY ABOVE11SCALE: FIRST FLOOR PLAN1/16" = 1'-0" 10987654321ABCDEFG121110330'-0"21'-6"25'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"166'-4"16'-4"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"15'-0"30'-0"15'-0"E.512.11.32.25'-0"8'-6"SECOND LEVELF.F. 350'-3"ELEVLOBBY201MEN'S205WOMEN'S203STAIR #1202STAIR #2207STAIR #3208BALCONYBALCONYJAN.2041A3.014A3.012A3.0111A3.013A3.0111613'-6"223TYP.3TYP.3TYP.2275127772897'-4"8'-3"3'-6"3'-6"11'-6"3'-6"11'-6"3'-6"11'-6"3'-6"8'-3"3'-0"4'-0"3'-6"3'-6"7'-0"9'-5"4'-0"9'-5"4'-0"6'-6"4'-0"6'-6"4'-0"6'-6"5'-2"3'-9"9'-5"3'-10"9'-5"8'-0"11'-6"3'-6"11'- 6 " 3' - 6 " 1 1 ' - 6 " 3' - 6 " 1 1 ' - 6 " 3' - 4 "3'-9"11'-6"4'-0"11'-6"4'-0"8'-3"7'-10"6'-6"5'-2"9'-5"5'-7"9'-5"5'-7"9'-5"6'-0"6'-6"3'-8"6'-6"3'-8"6'-6"6'-0"9'-5"5'-7"9'-5"5'-7"6'-6"6'-6"11'-6"11'-6"3'-6"8'-3"5'-1"4'-0"3'-6"10'-7"3'-6" 7'-4" 4'-4" 6'-2" 9'-5"3'-10" 6'-6"3'-9" 6'-6"3'-9"6'-6"3'-10" 9'-5" 6'-2" 11'-6" 5'-1" 4'-4"4'-4"3'-0"4'-4"4'-4"3'-0"3'-1"11'-6"3'-6"11'-6"3'-6"3'-6"8'-3"59'-1"11'-6"12'-0" 14'-5"69'-4"1'-0"6"6"6"6"1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0"14'-8"3'-6"12'-6"3'-6"10'-4"3'-0"4'-4"3'-7"4'-4"3'-0"4'-4" 4'-4"3'-0"4'-4" 3'-7"1'-0"7111111114'-4"2'-10"4'-4"18'-6"4'-4"2'-10"4'-4"3'-6"4'-4"2'-10"4'-4"4'-2"3'-0"4'-4"2'-10"4'-4"6'-0"6'-6"6'-0"4'-4"2'-10"4'-4"3'-6"4'-4"2'-10"4'-4"3'-6"4'-0"2'-11"3'-6"PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A212.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 8:14am - pcrotty The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALSECOND FLOOR PLANA2.12KEY NOTES .NOT ALL KEYNOTES MAY APPLY123EXTERIOR GLAZING SYSTEM; SEE BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR DETAILED DESCRIPTIONEDGE OF BALCONY AND WROUGHT IRON GUARDRAILEXTERIOR WALL; SEE BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR DETAILED DESCRIPTION456ENTRY DOORS7STRUCTURAL CONCRETE COLUMNMECHANICAL SHAFTLINE OF MANSARD ROOF ABOVE8ROOF ACCESS LADDER9EDGE OF BALCONY AND MANSARD ROOFTRELLIS ABOVE10LINES OF CANOPY ABOVE11SCALE: SECOND FLOOR PLAN1/16" = 1'-0" ELEVATOR OVERRIDE 10987654321ABCDEFG121110330'-0"21'-6"25'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"166'-4"16'-4"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"15'-0"30'-0"15'-0"E.512.11.32.25'-0"8'-6"RIDGERIDGERIDGE24'-6"T.O. ROOF23'-7"T.O. ROOF24'-9"T.O. ROOF24'-10"T.O. ROOF26'-0"T.O. ROOF24'-10"T.O. ROOF24'-10"T.O. ROOF26'-0"T.O. ROOF26'-0"T.O. ROOF29'-0"T.O. MANSARD27'-6"T.O. PARAPET29'-0"T.O. MANSARD29'-0"T.O. MANSARD29'-0"T.O. MANSARD29'-0"T.O. MANSARDSLOPE = MIN. 1/4" PER 1'-0" SLOPE = MIN. 1/4" PER 1'-0" SLOPE = MIN. 1/4" PER 1'-0" SLOPE = MIN. 1/4" PER 1'-0" SLOPE = MIN. 1/4" PER 1'-0" SLOPE = MIN. 1/4" PER 1'-0" SLOPE = MIN. 1/4" PER 1'-0" SLOPE = MIN. 1/4" PER 1'-0"30'-6"T.O. MANSARD29'-0" T.O. ENTRY FEATURE 27'-6"T.O. PARAPET11111223TYP.3TYP.3TYP.4456TYP.6TYP.71A3.014A3.012A3.0111A3.013A3.018893TYP.PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A231.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 8:14am - pcrotty The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALROOF PLANA2.31SCALE: ROOF PLAN1/16" = 1'-0"KEY NOTES .NOT ALL KEYNOTES MAY APPLY123SLOPED MANSARD ROOF WITH CLAY TILEEDGE OF BALCONY AT SECOND LEVELROOF DRAINS AND OVERFLOW DRAINS DISCHARGE TO RAISED PLANTERAT GROUND FLOOR FOR STORM WATER FILTRATION4567MECHANICAL DUCT DOG HOUSEROOF TOP UNITS ON WOOD PLATFORM; FINAL SIZE AND LOCATION TO BEDETERMINEDROOFING SYSTEMROOF ACCESS LADDER HATCH8ROOF SCREEN9DARK BRONZE ALUMINUM CANOPY WITH 2" SQUARE BLADES 0'-0" (336'-6")F.F.12'-3"2ND FLOOR29'-0"T.O. MANSARD24'-6"T.O. ROOF121110987654321405111102344455567777949119130'-6"T.O. MANSARD27'-6"T.O. PARAPET29'-0"T.O. CORNICE29'-0"T.O. MANSARD3567891011120'-0" (336'-6")F.F.12'-3"2ND FLOOR24'-6"T.O. ROOF29'-0"T.O. MANSARD112255888BCDEF0'-0" (336'-6")F.F.12'-3"2ND FLOOR24'-6"T.O. ROOF29'-0"T.O. MANSARD1245579GFD0'-0" (336'-6")F.F.12'-3"2ND FLOOR24'-6"T.O. ROOF30'-6"T.O. MANSARD124558929'-0"T.O. MANSARDD0'-0" (336'-6")F.F.12'-3"2ND FLOOR24'-6"T.O. ROOF29'-0"T.O. MANSARD125PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A301.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 8:14am - pcrotty The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALEXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.01KEY NOTES .NOT ALL KEYNOTES MAY APPLY123CLAY TILE MANSARD ROOFPAINTED STUCCO4WROUGHT IRON GUARD RAILLIMESTONE TILE51" INSULATED LOW E GLAZING SYSTEM WITHLOW-TINT GLASS IN BRONZE ANODIZED FRAMESWITH EXPRESSED MULLIONS67FRAMELESS DOOR/ENTRYWALL MOUNTED SCONCE; SEE 12/- FORSPECIFICATION8RAISED PLANTER9DARK BRONZE CANOPY WITH 2" SQUARE BLADES10LIMESTONE CORNICE11DARK BRONZE TRELLISTYPICAL WALL SCONCE DIMENSIONSMAIN ENTRY WALL SCONCE DIMENSIONSSCALE: EAST ELEVATION11/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: NORTH ELEVATION41/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: WEST ELEVATION21/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: SOUTH ELEVATION31/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: SOUTHWEST ELEVATION111/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: OCL INTRUGUE ADA COMPLIANT EXTERIOR WALL SCONCE12N.T.S.4"48"6"4"24"6" G1G1P2P3P1P1P4P5S1S1T1T1P1G1G1P1P2P2P3P4P5T1G1P1P4P5T1S1G1P1P2T1S1G1P1P2P3T1PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A302.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 8:14am - pcrotty The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALRENDERED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.02MATERIAL PALETTEG1GLAZINGMANUFACTURER:VIRACONTYPE:LOW TINTMULLIONS:BRONZEP1PAINT OVER STUCCO FINISHMANUFACTURER:DUNN EDWARDSCOLOR:DEC752 BIRCHWOODS1LIMESTONE TILEMANUFACTURER:ARIZONA TILETYPE:ROCAS AZULSIZE:12"X24"P2PAINT OVER STUCCO FINISHMANUFACTURER:DUNN EDWARDSCOLOR:DET692 KILN DRIEDP3PAINT OVER STUCCO FINISHMANUFACTURER:DUNN EDWARDSCOLOR:DET625 RECLAIMED WOODP4PAINT OVER STUCCO FINISHMANUFACTURER:DUNN EDWARDSCOLOR:DE6376 LOOKING GLASST1CLAY ROOF TILEMANUFACTURER:BORAL ROOFINGTYPE:1-PIECE CLAYLITECOLOR:MERLOT BLENDP5LIMESTONE FINISH TO MATCHMANUFACTURER:DUNN EDWARDSCOLOR:DET600 DOLPHIN TALESSCALE: EAST ELEVATION11/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: NORTH ELEVATION41/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: WEST ELEVATION21/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: SOUTH ELEVATION31/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: SOUTHWEST ELEVATION111/16" = 1'-0" 121110987654321405(338')F.F.PREVIOUS REDESIGN+35'-0"T.O. MANSARDPREVIOUS DESIGN(336'-6")F.F.PROPOSED DESIGN+29'-0"T.O. PARAPETPROPOSED DESIGN+39'-6"T.O. ENTRY FEATUREPREVIOUS DESIGN(339')F.F.PREVIOUS REDESIGN35'-0"T.O. MANSARDPREVIOUS REDESIGN39'-6"T.O. ENTRY FEATUREPREVIOUS REDESIGN(336'-6")F.F.PROPOSED DESIGN+30'-6"T.O. MANSARDPROPOSED DESIGN12'-0" 12'-0" 6'-0" 7'-6" 8'-10"PREVIOUS REDESIGNMASSING SHOWN DASHEDPROPOSED DESIGN SHOWN SHADED (SEE A3.01 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION)PREVIOUS REDESIGNMASSING SHOWN DASHEDPROPOSED DESIGN SHOWN SHADED (SEE A3.01 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION)7'-6" 7'-6" 5'-6"27'-6"T.O. PARAPET29'-0"T.O. CORNICE29'-0"T.O. MANSARDPREVIOUS REDESIGNMASSING SHOWN DASHED56789101112(336'-6")F.F.PROPOSED DESIGN+29'-0"T.O. MANSARDPROPOSED DESIGN(339')F.F.PREVIOUS REDESIGN35'-0"T.O. MANSARDPREVIOUS REDESIGN(338')F.F.PREVIOUS REDESIGN+35'-0"T.O. MANSARDPREVIOUS REDESIGN(336'-6")F.F.PROPOSED DESIGN+29'-0"T.O. MANSARDPROPOSED DESIGNPREVIOUS DESIGNMASSING SHOWN DASHEDPROPOSED DESIGN SHOWN SHADED (SEE A3.01 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION)7'-6" 6'-6" 5'-6"PREVIOUS DESIGNMASSING SHOWN DASHEDBCDEF(338')F.F.PREVIOUS REDESIGN+35'-0"T.O. MANSARDPREVIOUS REDESIGN(336'-6")F.F.PROPOSED DESIGN+29'-0"T.O. MANSARDPROPOSED DESIGNPREVIOUS DESIGNMASSING SHOWN DASHEDPROPOSED DESIGN SHOWN SHADED (SEE A3.01 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION)5'-6"GFD(339')F.F.PREVIOUS REDESIGN35'-0"T.O. MANSARDPREVIOUS REDESIGN(336'-6")F.F.PROPOSED DESIGN+30'-6"T.O. MANSARDPROPOSED DESIGNPREVIOUS DESIGNMASSING SHOWN DASHEDPROPOSED DESIGN SHOWN SHADED (SEE A3.01 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION)7'-6" 6'-0"+29'-0"T.O. MANSARDPROPOSED DESIGND(336'-6")F.F.PROPOSED DESIGN+29'-0"T.O. MANSARDPROPOSED DESIGN(339')F.F.PREVIOUS REDESIGN35'-0"T.O. MANSARDPREVIOUS REDESIGNPREVIOUS DESIGNMASSING SHOWN DASHEDPROPOSED DESIGN SHOWN SHADED (SEE A3.01 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION)7'-6" 6'-0"PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A303.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 8:15am - pcrotty The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALPREVIOUS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONDESIGN COMPARISONA3.03SCALE: EAST ELEVATION11/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: NORTH ELEVATION41/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: WEST ELEVATION21/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: SOUTH ELEVATION31/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: SOUTHWEST ELEVATION111/16" = 1'-0" 234567891011+12'-3"SECOND LEVEL+29'-0"T.O. MANSARD4050'-0" (336'-6")FIRST LEVEL-11'-6"PARKING LEVEL P-1-20'-6"PARKING LEVEL P-2GFEDCB+12'-3"SECOND LEVEL+29'-0"T.O. MANSARD0'-0" (336'-6")FIRST LEVEL-11'-6"PARKING LEVEL P-1-20'-6"PARKING LEVEL P-2SCALE: 405 ALBERTO WAY SITE SECTION1" = 20'-0"11LOS GATOSSARATOGA ROADSCALE: 405 ALBERTO WAY SITE SECTION1" = 20'-0"9ADJACENT PROPERTYENTRY DRIVE AND PARKINGLAS CASITASTOWN HOMESGRILL 87RESTAURANT11'-0"11'-0"36'-4"23'-9"ALBERTO WAYHIGHWAY 17ON-RAMP15'-4"58'-1"18'-4"57'-0"54'-10"52'-0"EXISTING GRADESHOWN HATCHEDEXISTING GRADESHOWN HATCHED15'-6" 9'-0" 4'-6"341.31'EX. GRADE339.02'EX. GRADE341'EX. GRADE338.84'EX. GRADE33.84'EX. GRADE27'-6" T.O. PARAPET FROM F.F.SCALE: 405 ALBERTO WAY SITE ELEVATION1" = 20'-0"10LOS GATOSSARATOGA ROADADJACENT PROPERTYENTRY DRIVE AND PARKINGEXISTING GRADESHOWN HATCHED106'-10"EXISTING GRADETOPOGRAPHYSHOWN DASHEDEXISTING GRADETOPOGRAPHYSHOWN DASHEDEXISTING GRADETOPOGRAPHYSHOWN DASHED82'-0"73'-5"75'-4"24'-6" T.O. ROOF FROM F.F.4'-6" MANSARD 24'-6" T.O. ROOF FROM F.F.LINE OF GRADE ATSATELLITE HEALTHCARECOMMERCIAL BUILDINGSATELLITE HEALTHCARECOMMERCIAL BUILDING BEYONDBEST WESTERN2 STORY HOTEL24'-23 8"16'-21 4"341.14'F.F.341.20'F.F.344.75'F.F.338.39'F.F.LAS CASITASTOWN HOMES338.39'F.F.22'-0" 11'-6" 9" SLAB 11'-6" 4'-6" MANSARD *SLAB THICKNESSES ARE PRELIMINARY.FINAL THICKNESSES TO BE PROVIDED WITHSTRUCTURAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS8" SLAB 10'-10" CLEAR 8" SLAB 8'-4" CLEAR 9" SLAB *SLAB THICKNESSES ARE PRELIMINARY.FINAL THICKNESSES TO BE PROVIDED WITHSTRUCTURAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS11'-6"9"SLAB 11'-6"4'-6" MANSARD8" SLAB10'-10"CLEAR8"SLAB8'-4"CLEAR 9"SLAB 1211109876543214051'-0" MAT SLAB 1'-0"MATSLAB 24'-6"20'-6"1'-0" 24'-6"20'-6"1'-0" 22'-0"PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A401-A402.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 8:15am - pcrotty The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALSITE CONTEXT SECTIONSA4.01 4'-6" ENTRY FEATURE +12'-3"SECOND LEVEL0'-0" (336'-6")FIRST LEVEL+29'-0"T.O. MANSARDBCDEFEDCBE.5GF+12'-3"SECOND LEVEL0'-0" (336'-6")FIRST LEVEL+29'-0"T.O. ENTRYFEATURE-11'-6"PARKING LEVEL P-1-20'-6"PARKING LEVEL P-2SCALE: 405 ALBERTO WAY SITE SECTION1" = 20'-0"10SCALE: 405 ALBERTO WAY SITE ELEVATION1" = 20'-0"9HIGHWAY 17ON-RAMPHIGHWAY 17ON-RAMPEXISTING GRADETOPOGRAPHYSHOWN DASHEDEXISTING GRADETOPOGRAPHYSHOWN DASHED2-STORY PUEBLO DELOS GATOSTOWNHOUSEEXISTING GRADESHOWN HATCHED130'-2"21'-9"36'-3"37'-4"ALBERTO WAY225'-7"15'-2"52'-6"67'-8"3-STORY PUEBLO DELOS GATOSTOWNHOUSE BEYOND338.69'F.F.22'-0"3-STORY PUEBLO DELOS GATOSTOWNHOUSE338.46'F.F.339.53'F.F.32'-9"22'-0"EXISTING GRADESHOWN HATCHEDALBERTO WAY32'-9"*SLAB THICKNESSES ARE PRELIMINARY.FINAL THICKNESSES TO BE PROVIDED WITHSTRUCTURAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS11'-6" 9" SLAB 11'-6" 8" SLAB 10'-10" CLEAR 8" SLAB 8'-4" CLEAR 9" SLAB 1'-0" MAT SLAB 24'-6"20'-6"1'-0"PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-A401-A402.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 8:15am - pcrotty The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALSITE CONTEXT SECTIONSA4.02 10987654321ABCDEFG121110330'-0"21'-6"25'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"166'-4"16'-4"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"15'-0"30'-0"15'-0"E.512.11.32.25'-0"8'-6"P-1 LEVEL326'UP1:5.75 R A M P (17.45% M A X )NOPARKINGNOPARKING2834314164215211215UPUPDN1:18 RAMP(5.25% MAX)ELEVLOBBYP101STAIR #1P102STAIR #2P107631TYP.(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"4'-6"8'-6"2'-3"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"34'-8"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"8'-6" 18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"2'-8"16'-0"24'-0"16'-0"2'-8"18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"1'-9"16'-0"15'-5"24'-0"16'-0"16'-0"24'-0"22'-2"16'-0"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"16'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0"18'-0"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"8'-6"(3) STAL L S @ 8 ' - 6 " = 2 5 ' - 6 " (2) STAL L S @ 8'-6" = 1 7 ' - 0 " 4'-10"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"(2) STALLS @8'-6" = 17'-0"4'-3"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"8'-6"21'-6"24'-0"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"3'-9"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"8'-6"6'-4"22'-11"(2) STALLS @8'-6" = 17'-0 "2'-0"25'-6"4A1.024'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"34'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"4'-6"18'-0"24'-0"1TYP.1TYP.1TYP.23TYP.3TYP.4TYP.4TYP.4TYP.6TYP.6TYP.54'-6"8'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-3"(3) STAL L S @ 8 ' - 6 " = 2 5 ' - 6 " 8'-6"8'-6"PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-AP211.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 8:15am - pcrotty The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALPARKING LEVEL P-1AP2.11KEY NOTES .NOT ALL KEYNOTES MAY APPLY123STRUCTURAL CONCRETE COLUMNLONG TERM BICYCLE STORAGE4LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE SHOWN DASHEDCONTINUOUS CURB WHEEL STOP;OPPOSING RANKS OF PARKING STALLS TOBE SEPARATED BY RAISED CURBED ISLAND5RAMP TO SITE LEVEL PARKING6STALLS RESERVED FOR CAV/LEV/FEVPARKINGSCALE: PARKING LEVEL P-1 : 137 PARKING STALLS1/16" = 1'-0" UPUPUP1:18 RAMP(5.25% MAX)30153163222P-1 LEVEL317'ELEVLOBBYP201STAIR #1P202STAIR #2P20710987654321ABCDEFG121110330'-0"21'-6"25'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"166'-4"16'-4"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"15'-0"30'-0"15'-0"E.512.11.32.25'-0"8'-6"4184151TYP.(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"4'-6"4'-6"8'-6"2'-3"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"34'-8"18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"2'-8"16'-0"24'-0"16'-0"2'-8"18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"1'-9"24'-0"16'-0"24'-0"16'-0"24'-0"16'-0"4'-8"16'-0"24'-0"18'-0"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STAL L S @ 8'-6" = 2 5 ' - 6 " 5'-3" (3) STAL L S @ 8 ' - 6 " = 2 5 ' - 6 " (3) STAL L S @ 8 ' - 6 " = 2 5 ' - 6 " 5'-3" (2) STAL L S @ 8'-6" = 17 ' - 0 " 4'-10"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"(2) STALLS @8'-6" = 17'-0"4'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"8'-6"21'-6"24'-0"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"3'-9"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"24'-0"6'-4"36'-8"2'-0"4'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"34'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"4'-6"18'-0"24'-0"1TYP.1TYP.3TYP.3TYP.(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"5'-3" (3) STAL L S @ 8'-6" = 25 ' - 6 "(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"8'-6"8'-6"(3) STALLS @8'-6" = 25'-6"34'-6"4'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"4'-6"4'-6"(2) STALLS @8'-6" = 17'-0"(2) STALLS @8'-6" = 17'-0"(3) STALLS @ 8'-6" = 25'-6"1TYP.4'-6"PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONP:\2015 Jobs\153948 401-409 Alberto Way\01-Planning Application\2017-1107-6th PA Submittal\153948-AP212.dwg - Nov 07, 2017, 8:15am - pcrotty The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) thatARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports,electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TECand ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of suchdocumentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall notsue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants'instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will beat the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC'sconsultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify andhold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents andemployees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses,including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse ofARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service.Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaleddimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions andnotify ARC TEC of any discrepancies.‹&RS\ULJKW$5&7(&,QFIn Association with:A Planning Application for: 405 ALBERTO WAY LOS GATOS, CA 95032 15394805.15.15PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL07.23.15PLANNING SUBMITTAL10.05.15PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.05.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.19.16PLANNING RESUBMITTAL02.08.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL03.09.17PLANNING RESUBMITTAL11.07.17PLANNING RESUBMITTALPARKING LEVEL P-2AP2.12KEY NOTES .NOT ALL KEYNOTES MAY APPLY123STRUCTURAL CONCRETE COLUMNLONG TERM BICYCLE STORAGE4LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE SHOWN DASHEDCONTINUOUS CURB WHEEL STOP;OPPOSING RANKS OF PARKING STALLS TOBE SEPARATED BY RAISED CURBED ISLAND5RAMP TO SITE LEVEL PARKING6STALLS RESERVED FOR CAV/LEV/FEVPARKINGSCALE: PARKING LEVEL P-2 : 123 PARKING STALLS1/16" = 1'-0" L o s G a t o s S a r a t o g a R o a dA l b e r t o W a y H i g h w a y 1 7 O n - R a m p E x i s t i n g D r i v e A i s l eLarge evergreen trees - Live Oaks Limit of garage below Upright trees in synthetic turf in Dog Park Vines planted on existing wall Large amenity / flex space with enhanced concrete paving, seat wall and Colonnade Curved concrete wall that rises from seat wall height to fountain wall height Flowering Cherry Trees enclose amenity patio and create buffer to garage ramp Seating areas with fire pits Curved low fountain pool with cascading waterfall Row of narrow upright evergreen screen trees Row of accent trees in tree grates Raised planter to enclose the amenity space Circular concrete seating blocks Raised planter Trees, shrubs, and vines to screen the trash enclosure Flowering Cherry accent trees ADA path of travel from the building to the street Separated street sidewalk with parkway strip between street and sidewalk Street tree Continuous row of street trees Enhanced paving - Pavers Upright evergreen screen treesAccent band continues through the landscape Enhanced paving - Colored and scored concrete paving with accent bands Enhanced patio paving Small grouping of Flowering Cherry trees Entry courtyard with seating and container planting serves as extended lobby Separated street sidewalk with parkway strip between street and sidewalk Continuous row of street trees Upright evergreen screen trees Flowering Cherry accent trees DG path or enhanced garage decking around the building Landscape planting over the garage structure below Flowering Cherry accent trees Limit of garage below Limit of garage below Stormwater treatment in raised planter Stormwater treatment Enlargement - see Sheet L0.2 Existing trees in Cal Trans right of way to remain Existing trees in Cal Trans right of way to remain Bike racks for short term bike parking (18 spaces)Existing to RemainExisting to Remain Existing to RemainAerial ViewL o s G a t o s S a r a t o g a R o a dA l b e r t o W a y B i k e L a n e B i k e L a n e Bicycle lane PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION C:\Users\Matt\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5444\Pre1726R7.dwg - Nov 17, 2017, 10:58am - MattThe "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TEC and ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of such documentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall not sue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service. Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies. © Copyright ARC TEC, Inc. 2015 In Association with:A Planning Application for:405 ALBERTO WAYLOS GATOS, CA 95032KLA 15-1726 05.15.15 PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL 07.23.15 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.05.15 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.05.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.19.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.08.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 03.09.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.07.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.17.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN New street frontage sidewalk Retaining wall per Civil Engineer New planting along each side of the new sidewalk Vine covered trash enclosure Clear vision triangle - plants to be less than 36" in height with trees pruned above 7'-0" typ. Clear vision triangle - plants to be less than 36" in height with trees pruned above 7'-0" typ. Trees as shown on this exhibit represent growth approximately 5-7 years after installation Dog park with synthetic turf and agility course - 5,400 sf Amenity space of enhanced paving and synthetic turf with seating and dining areas made up of seating pods Monument sign Dog park vestibule and enclosure fence Patio with trellis at entrance to the dog park Flowering Cherry accent trees Enclosure fence with gate Enclosure fence with gate Dog park enclosure fence Raised planter to enclose the amenity space Circular concrete seating blocks Limit of garage below "Water wall" fountain feature Flowering Cherry trees in raised planter to create enclosed feeling at amenity space Fire pits and sectional furniture Ramp to parking garage below Street trees and low groundcover in parkway strip along Alberto Way A l b e r t o W a y Enhanced paving - permeable pavers Enhanced paving - permeable pavers Circular colored concrete accent bands continue through the site and plaza spaces Retaining wall at ramp Trees in tree grates Colored concrete Accessible stalls Accessible Path of Travel to the street Colored concrete paving accent bands Square grid permeable pavers - uniform color Driveway apron per City Standards Flowering Cherry accent trees B i k e L a n e Bicycle lane Continuous row of street trees Separated sidewalk Evergreen hedge Retaining wall Row of upright evergreen screen trees Flowering Cherry accent trees Low growing grasses and groundcover Evergreen hedge Raised planter with low accent plants Enhanced tile or stone paving at entry Short term bicycle parking (18 spaces) Seat wall with raised planter Accent flowering plants and grasses Flowering Cherry trees in raised planter Accent planting with a variety of leaf color, form and texture Planted containers and outdoor seating to expand interior lobby space outside PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION C:\Users\Matt\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5444\Pre1726R7.dwg - Nov 17, 2017, 10:59am - MattThe "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TEC and ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of such documentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall not sue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service. Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies. © Copyright ARC TEC, Inc. 2015 In Association with:A Planning Application for:405 ALBERTO WAYLOS GATOS, CA 95032KLA 15-1726 05.15.15 PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL 07.23.15 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.05.15 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.05.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.19.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.08.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 03.09.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.07.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.17.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL ENLARGEMENT PLAN Trees as shown on this exhibit represent growth approximately 5-7 years after installation Raised planter separation for outdoor patio Section 'A' 405 Alberto Way L o s G a t o s S a r a t o g a R o a dA l b e r t o W a y H i g h w a y 1 7 O n - R a m p B A C Trees as shown on this exhibit represent growth approximately 5-7 years after installation Planting is shown at 5-7 years growth Planting is shown at 5-7 years growth Planting is shown at 5-7 years growth Section 'B' Section 'C' FFE 336.50 FFE 336.50 Garage Ramp Storm-water filtration planter per the Civil Engineer's plan - grasses and approved filtration species Concrete garage shell Property LineNarrow upright trees to line the garage ramp Evergreen hedge Existing CMU block wall along property line to remain Existing trees to remain Concrete walking path around site Flowering Cherry trees to create backdrop to water feature Grass like planting below bamboo in raised, over-structure, planter "Water Wall" fountain feature - wall transitions down to seat wall - see plan Large plaza space - pavers or colored concrete topping slab over garage shell below Concrete garage shell Building exterior - see Architect's plans Second level patio - see Architect's plans Raised planter over structure with monoculture planting Raised planter wall with plaster veneer and precast cap to match architecture Large plaza space - pavers or colored concrete topping slab over garage shell below Circular colored concrete seating blocks Colored concrete paving at ADA parking stall Permeable pavers in drive aisles and non ADA parking stalls Upright evergreen screen trees Evergreen hedge Grass like planting in foreground of hedge Colored concrete accent band continues through landscape planters Curb and gutter - see Civil Engineer's plans Alberto Way Street trees Parkway strip with low groudcover - no shrubs above 36" with the clear vision triangle New concrete sidewalk 335.80 336.70 Concrete garage shell Colored concrete topping slab over garage shell below Building exterior - see Architect's plans Permeable pavers in drive aisles and non ADA parking stalls Concrete retain wall - see Civil Engineer's plans Low planting at parking lot Evergreen hedge Upright evergreen screen trees Grass like planting in foreground of hedge Street trees Parkway strip with low groundcover - no shrubs above 36" with the clear vision triangle Curb and gutter - see Civil Engineer's plans New concrete sidewalk Evergreen hedge Low groundcover planting Upright accent trees in front of building 335.50 336.70 340.3 Flowering Cherry Trees in Raised Planter Cascading water weir (Schematic example) Plaster veneer wall with precast cap Colored Concrete Sidewalk topping slab PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION C:\Users\Matt\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5444\Pre1726R7.dwg - Nov 17, 2017, 10:59am - MattThe "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TEC and ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of such documentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall not sue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service. Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies. © Copyright ARC TEC, Inc. 2015 In Association with:A Planning Application for:405 ALBERTO WAYLOS GATOS, CA 95032KLA 15-1726 05.15.15 PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL 07.23.15 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.05.15 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.05.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.19.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.08.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 03.09.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.07.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.17.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SITE SECTIONS Alberto Way Garage Garage Garage 405 Alberto Way L o s G a t o s S a r a t o g a R o a dA l b e r t o W a y H i g h w a y 1 7 O n - R a m p Trees as shown on this exhibit represent growth approximately 5-7 years after installation D E F G Planting is shown at 5-7 years growth Section 'D' Planting is shown at 5-7 years growth Section 'E' Planting is shown at 5-7 years growth Section 'F' Planting is shown at 5-7 years growth Section 'G' Curb and gutter - See civil engineer's plans Parkway strip with low groundcover Tubular steel guardrail/fence along the top of the retaining wall Concrete retaining wall - See civil engineer's plans New concrete sidewalk Existing trees and shrubs/ groundcover within the Right-of-Way to remain to the greatest extent possible 348.02 Seating pods and outdoor dining with similar theme to carry the landscape concept throughout the site Planted slope with retaining seat wall to create edge for amenity space Existing swale to remain Existing trees and shrubs/ groundcover within the Right-of-Way to remain to the greatest extent possible Existing trees to remain New native and naturalized shrubs along the edge of the new retaining wall 345.50 FFE 336.50 FFE 336.50 FFE 336.50 Curb and gutter - See civil engineer's plans Parkway strip with low groundcover Tubular steel guardrail/fence along the top of the retaining wall Concrete retaining wall - See civil engineer's plans New concrete sidewalk Existing trees and shrubs/ groundcover within the Right-of-Way to remain to the greatest extent possible New native and naturalized shrubs along the edge of the new retaining wall Existing trees to remain Storm-water filtration planter per the Civil Engineer's plan - grasses and approved filtration species Building exterior - see Architect's plans Concrete garage shell Non-living groundcover over garage shell Walking path around building over garage shell Retaining wall to allow existing grade to remain unchanged to greatest extent possible - see Civil Engineer's plans Existing swale to remain R.O.W.R.O.W.R.O.W.R.O.W.Existing trees and shrubs/ groundcover within the Right-of-Way to remain to the greatest extent possible Storm-water filtration planter per the Civil Engineer's plan - grasses and approved filtration species Building exterior - see Architect's plans Concrete garage shell Non-living groundcover over garage shell Walking path around building over garage shell Existing swale to remain Building exterior - see Architect's plans Concrete garage shell Non-living groundcover over garage shell Existing trees and shrubs/ groundcover within the Right-of-Way to remain to the greatest extent possible Retaining wall to allow existing grade to remain unchanged to greatest extent possible - see Civil Engineer's plans Walking path around building over garage shell Raised planter wall with plaster veneer and precast cap to match architecture Raised planter wall with plaster veneer and precast cap to match architecture PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION C:\Users\Matt\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5444\Pre1726R7.dwg - Nov 17, 2017, 11:00am - MattThe "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TEC and ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of such documentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall not sue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service. Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies. © Copyright ARC TEC, Inc. 2015 In Association with:A Planning Application for:405 ALBERTO WAYLOS GATOS, CA 95032KLA 15-1726 05.15.15 PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL 07.23.15 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.05.15 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.05.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.19.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.08.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 03.09.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.07.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.17.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL SITE SECTIONS Existing conditions looking west from Alberto Way at Los Gatos Saratoga Road Existing landscape between project site and Los Gatos Saratoga Road Existing landscape along the edge Los Gatos Saratoga Road Los Gatos Saratoga Road Garage Garage Garage Los Gatos Saratoga Road Existing elevations to remain on adjacent property Existing elevations to remain on adjacent property Existing elevations to remain on adjacent property Top of existing grade Top of existing grade Site Furnishings - Permanent (mounted) Mixture of synthetic turf and enhanced concrete paving in amenity space STOPNO PARKING NO PARKING Permeable Vehicular Interlocking Pavers - Unique Color in Entry Circle Vehicular Colored Concrete - ADA Stalls DG texture or Chem stain on top of garage deck for "natural" trail around building Colored Concrete Sidewalk with saw cut grid score joints - vehicular and pedestrian areas to have the same color and texture Natural Gray Pedestrian Concrete and Driveway Apron Truncated Domes Vehicular Natural Gray Concrete - Ramp and Trash Enclosure Colored Concrete Circular Band - 2 finishes of contrasting color - Vehicular and Pedestrian Grade - Width, color, and texture to be consistent between vehicular and pedestrian applications Pavers or Concrete Topping Slab over Garage Below - Type II - enhanced color and texture to contrast with Type I Pavers or Concrete Topping Slab over Garage Below - Type I - enhanced color and texture to contrast with Type II Stone/Tile Pavers over Garage at Building Entry - Two types with contrasting color, material, and pattern PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION C:\Users\Matt\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5444\Pre1726R7.dwg - Nov 17, 2017, 11:00am - MattThe "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TEC and ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of such documentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall not sue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service. Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies. © Copyright ARC TEC, Inc. 2015 In Association with:A Planning Application for:405 ALBERTO WAYLOS GATOS, CA 95032KLA 15-1726 05.15.15 PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL 07.23.15 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.05.15 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.05.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.19.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.08.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 03.09.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.07.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.17.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL PAVING MATERIALS Circular modular seating element Non-Living Groundcover STOPNO PARKING NO PARKING PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION C:\Users\Matt\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5444\Pre1726R7.dwg - Nov 17, 2017, 11:00am - MattThe "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TEC and ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of such documentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall not sue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service. Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies. © Copyright ARC TEC, Inc. 2015 In Association with:A Planning Application for:405 ALBERTO WAYLOS GATOS, CA 95032KLA 15-1726 05.15.15 PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL 07.23.15 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.05.15 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.05.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.19.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.08.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 03.09.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.07.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.17.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL LOW LEVEL LANDSCAPE MOOD LIGHTING STOPNO PARKING NO PARKING Clear Vision Triangle - all shrubs to be less than 36" high and all trees to be pruned above 7'-0" Clear Vision Triangle - all shrubs to be less than 36" high and all trees to be pruned above 7'-0" PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION C:\Users\Matt\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5444\Pre1726R7.dwg - Nov 17, 2017, 11:00am - MattThe "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TEC and ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of such documentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall not sue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service. Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies. © Copyright ARC TEC, Inc. 2015 In Association with:A Planning Application for:405 ALBERTO WAYLOS GATOS, CA 95032KLA 15-1726 05.15.15 PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL 07.23.15 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.05.15 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.05.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.19.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.08.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 03.09.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.07.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.17.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN Clear Vision Triangle - all shrubs to be less than 36" high and all trees to be pruned above 7'-0" Dog park with synthetic turf and agility course - 5,400 sf Trees Shrubs Groundcover Vines TIL COR Tilia cordata 'Corinthian' Littleleaf Linden PRU AKE Prunus x yedoensis 'Akebono' Flowering Cherry LAU SAR Laurus nobilis 'Saratoga' Sweet Bay MAG LIT Magnolia grandiflora 'Little Gem' Dwarf Southern Magnolia QUE AGR Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak FIC PUM Ficus pumila Creeping Fig ANI EME Anigozanthos x 'Bush Emerald' Emerald Kangaroo Paw CAL KAR Calamagrostis x acutiflora 'Karl Foerster' Feather Reed Grass CEA YAN Ceanothus griseus horizontalis 'Yankee Point' California Lilac CIS PUR Cistus x purpureus Orchid Rockrose DIA VAR Dianella variegata Dianella LIG TEX Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' Wax Leaf Privet MAH BEA Mahonia bealei Leatherleaf Mahonia PIT VAR Pittosporum tobira 'Variegata' Variegated Mock Orange RHA EVE Rhamnus californica 'Eve Case' California Coffeeberry ROS WHI Rosa x 'White Flower Carpet' White Carpet Rose ARC UVA Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick IMP WAL Impatiens walleriana Impatiens AST NIV Astelia nivicola 'Red Gem' Astelia BAC TWI Baccharis pilularis 'Twin Peaks #2' Twin Peaks Coyote Brush SAL PER Salvia Numorosa Perennial Salvia TRA ASI Trachelospermum asiaticum Star Jasmine LIR MUS Liriope muscari Lily Turf LOM BRE Lomandra longifolia 'Breeze' Dwarf Mat Rush PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION C:\Users\Matt\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5444\Pre1726R7.dwg - Nov 17, 2017, 11:00am - MattThe "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TEC and ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of such documentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall not sue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service. Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies. © Copyright ARC TEC, Inc. 2015 In Association with:A Planning Application for:405 ALBERTO WAYLOS GATOS, CA 95032KLA 15-1726 05.15.15 PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL 07.23.15 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.05.15 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.05.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.19.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.08.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 03.09.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.07.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.17.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL PLANT IMAGES PRU SNO Prunus serrulata 'Snow Goose' Japanese Flowering Cherry POD GRA Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine THU OCC Thuja occidentalis 'Emerald' Emerald Arborvitae STOPNO PARKING NO PARKING PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION C:\Users\Matt\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5444\Pre1726R7.dwg - Nov 17, 2017, 11:00am - MattThe "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TEC and ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of such documentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall not sue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service. Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies. © Copyright ARC TEC, Inc. 2015 In Association with:A Planning Application for:405 ALBERTO WAYLOS GATOS, CA 95032KLA 15-1726 05.15.15 PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL 07.23.15 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.05.15 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.05.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.19.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.08.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 03.09.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.07.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.17.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL EXISTING TREE PLAN Aerial ViewL o s G a t o s S a r a t o g a R o a dA l b e r t o W a y STOPNO PARKING NO PARKING SS C ## #" C SS PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION C:\Users\Matt\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5444\Pre1726R7.dwg - Nov 17, 2017, 11:00am - MattThe "user(s)" in possession of this documentation acknowledge(s) that ARC TEC's and ARC TEC consultants' drawings, specifications, reports, electronic data and other documentation are instruments of service. ARC TEC and ARC TEC consultants shall be deemed the author and owner of such documentation. The "user(s)" in possession of this documentation shall not sue or authorize any other person to use ARC TEC's or ARC TEC consultants' instruments of service. Reuse without ARC TEC's written authorization will be at the user(s) sole risk and without liability to ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants. The user(s) possessing this documentation shall indemnify and hold harmless ARC TEC and ARC TEC's consultants and agents and employees from and against all claims, damages losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of unauthorized reuse of ARC TEC or ARC TEC's consultants instruments of service. Written dimensions on this drawing shall have precedence over any scaled dimension. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING for accurate dimensions and notify ARC TEC of any discrepancies. © Copyright ARC TEC, Inc. 2015 In Association with:A Planning Application for:405 ALBERTO WAYLOS GATOS, CA 95032KLA 15-1726 05.15.15 PRELIM PLANNING SUBMITTAL 07.23.15 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.05.15 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.05.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.19.16 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02.08.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 03.09.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.07.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 11.17.17 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL PRELIMINARY IRRIGATION PLAN