Attachment 12LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
D. Michael Kane, Chair
Matthew Hudes, Vice Chair
Mary Badame
Kendra Burch
Melanie Hanssen
Kathryn Janoff
Tom O’Donnell
Town Manager:Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney:Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 12
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR KANE: I’m going to move now to the public
hearing items, #3 becomes #4, #4 becomes #3, and so this is
the new #3.
Architecture and Site Application S-15-056,
Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009, and
Environmental Impact Report EIR-16-001. Project location is
401-409 Alberto Way. Property Owner/Applicant: Shane
Arters, LP Acquisitions. Requesting approval to demolish
three existing office buildings and construct a new two-
story office building with underground parking on property
zoned CH. This is APN 529-23-018.
Ms. Armer, will you provide us with a Staff
Report?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: To the Chair, I’ll be
recusing myself from this item, as my residence is located
within 500’ of the project application.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I will return.
CHAIR KANE: Ms. Armer.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JENNIFER ARMER: Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair,
and Commissioners. The item in front of you is the
continuation from December 13th and January 10th meetings.
The review of the proposed office building at 401-409
Alberto Way was continued to February 28th with specific
direction to consider revisions to the project. The
Applicant submitted a letter explaining that additional
changes to the project are not feasible. The Applicant
requested that the meeting be renoticed for tonight,
February 14th, so that the Planning Commission can consider
the project as submitted for consideration on December 13th
and January 10th hearings.
This includes the Staff’s presentation, but I’d
be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIR KANE: Any questions for Staff at this
point? Good.
At our previous meeting the public portion of the
public hearing was closed. Unless there is objection, it
seems to me that our job tonight is to direct questions to
Staff and discuss the application until a motion is
provided. Are there any comments on that point of view?
Then let’s do that. Let’s discuss the application. Not all
at once, but whenever you’re ready. Commissioner O'Donnell.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: At our last meeting
there was an attempt to compromise, which the Applicant has
rejected, and therefore I was taken in by—and I mean in the
best sense—the proposed… Well, the motion we passed last
time, and that was to both address the complaints and also
to help the Applicant, but since the Applicant doesn’t like
that help I guess I go back to my original position: I
think the project is too large, I think the impacts
notwithstanding…
You know, it’s interesting. I’ve been doing this
for 14 years or 15 years, whatever it’s been, and I never
have seen a traffic report that didn’t tell me things are
going to be fine, and they never are. And then I’m told,
well, we all use the same manuals, and I have to tell you,
I wouldn’t use those manuals, because they’re consistently
wrong. In any event, as far as I’m concerned this evening
our task is quite easy. I personally will be voting against
the project.
CHAIR KANE: Is that a motion, or a comment?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: (Inaudible).
CHAIR KANE: All right, we can still have
discussion after a motion. Anyone else? Commissioner
Janoff.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: My comments are fairly
lengthy, so in deference to other Commissioners who may
have shorter comments to make, I would propose that they
speak.
CHAIR KANE: Why don’t you lead us off? Give a
couple and then we’ll go somewhere else.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: As Commissioner O'Donnell
mentioned, the motion for the last meeting was an attempt
to provide a compromise, to really give the neighbors at
least back the views that they cherish.
The Applicant chose, as Commissioner O'Donnell
has mentioned, to reject our recommendation. They failed to
take the opportunity to address the concerns of the
neighbors, and they failed to directly and positively
address the neighbors’ issues of mass, scale, loss of
views, and traffic overload on Alberto Way.
I will not be supporting the application before
us tonight, and specifically I find a lack of conformity to
the following General Plan elements, and there may be
others. I won’t read the context of each of these, because
I think you’re all familiar with them, but generally
speaking they speak to the loss of views, the loss of
quality of life, and the impact on the neighborhood, which
would be a negative impact. The specific elements in the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
General Plan are Policy LU-1.1, LU-1.2, LU-1.6, LU-1.8, LU-
6.2, LU-6.4, and LU-7.3. In addition, the policies within
the Community Design Element of the General Plan, the
Applicant has also shown a lack of conformity to include
Policies CD-1.1, CD-1.2, and CD-1.4.
Throughout the General Plan, throughout many
documents of the Town, the preservation of scenic views is
so heavily emphasized it cannot be understated how
important that is to the Town. Along those lines, again, in
the Community Design Element, Policy 16.1, which I will say
is to prevent development that significantly depletes,
damages, or alters landscape vistas, 16.2, 16.3, 17.3, and
specifically 17.3 are the criteria the Town Staff is
required to address and review from an applicant’s report.
The item in question is Item N, which is
Ridgeline Preservation. There is a considerable amount of
the ridgeline that will be obstructed by the Proposal #3
from the Applicant.
In addition to the General Plan elements, which I
find a lack of conformity from the Applicant, I also find a
lack of conformity to the following elements within the
Town’s Commercial Design Guidelines, and I would just
reiterate something that many of the Commissioners have
already stated many times. From the introduction of the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commercial Design Guidelines, the proposed structure does
not conform with the introductory comments which say that,
“The community’s built environment characterized by
relative small-scale buildings, a quiet architectural
demeanor, respect for neighboring properties, and the
attention to architectural detail and landscaping.”
Furthermore, in Section 1.3, Purpose, the
following bullets I find to be a lack of conformity from
the Applicant. “Ensure that the new development reinforces
and supports specific qualities of the Town of Los Gatos,
establishes a high level of design quality, maintains a
building scale consistent with the Town’s small scale
image, reinforces the special quality of the Town’s visual
character, protects property owner investments by
discouraging inappropriate adjacent development.”
I’d like to pause on this now to make a comment
on the design that hasn’t been made so far. We’re all
talking about the 40’ or 50’ or 60’ or 80’ separation
between the proposed plan and the adjacent properties.
That’s for the building that’s above ground. If you look at
the plan very closely, if I’m not mistaken the underground
structure is actually within 15’ of the property line, so
when we talk the northern property line of the adjacent
neighbors, when we talk about potential disruption to the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
neighboring properties, keep in mind that the underground
excavation that you all are concerned with is literally
within 15’ of your property line; that’s about 40’ closer
than the building proper. Just want you to have that in
mind.
Moving on, in Section 1.4 again of the Commercial
Design Guidelines, Community Expectations, I find that the
Applicant is not in conformance with the following bullets:
Careful attention to architectural and landscape details,
similar to the Town’s residential structures, variety and
diversity of architectural character that supports the
current interesting mix of the Town’s styles; small scale
buildings with a strong pedestrian orientation; the
sensitive interface of commercial development with adjacent
residential neighborhoods; strong encouragement of a unique
Los Gatos scale and character; maintenance of a sense of
place with views of surrounding hills preserved; rich
architectural fabric with interesting details; scale and
character appropriate to the setting; thoughtful
architectural design,” not boxes with architectural
cosmetic mansard roofs attached.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Did any of your citations
address the infill policy?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I did not address the
infill policy. It was on my list, but have it.
CHAIR KANE: Okay, it’s on my list. Anyone else?
Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I’ll start my comments out
by first stating that I’m really proud of the work that
Staff, Town Council, and the Planning Commission has done
on this. I think it’s been very thoroughly reviewed and I
think that everyone has done an astounding job at the
review level they’ve done, as obviously demonstrated by
Commissioner Janoff.
Also, that I think I, along with everyone else
here, is aware that something will be built on that corner.
It is a commercial property that something is going to
happen there. However, as a Commissioner I would hope that
a property that is designed to fit into a sensitive corner
like that would be designed with the neighborhood
compatibility in mind. We all recognize that property
values in Los Gatos are high, and I think that is because
of the sensitive design standards that we have that keep it
in the small town character and keep the things that we
cherish, such as the views. If we begin to vary from those
sensitive design standards we may not see that people do
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
want to continue leasing here, that home values stay as
high as they are.
Based on those thoughts that I’ve had I feel that
as it stands the application is not compatible with the
neighborhood, and very specifically I think that the item
that has caused me the most angst recently is the views.
The view corridors from many standpoints, I know that
Commissioner Janoff was trying to reach a good compromise
last time and maintain a portion of the view corridors, but
as it stands you can walk up and down that street and from
various angels or properties the view corridors are clearly
interrupted.
Based on those and probably plenty of others, but
I’m sure we’re all going to wind up saying a lot tonight, I
wouldn’t be able to support the application as it stands.
CHAIR KANE: Further comment? Commissioner
Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I spoke a lot at the last
meeting, so I won’t say as much this time. I, too, am
concerned about the size of this building, but I do
struggle with the idea of objective standards. We’re in a
situation where the objective standards say that that
building isn’t too large, but then there’s this concept of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
neighborhood compatibility, but it isn’t well suited to
pure, objective standards.
We spent a lot of time at the last meeting trying
to get to the concept of what constitutes Class A space,
and there are clearly buildings out there that are less
than 74,000 square feet that are Class A space, but the
Applicant has testimony from realtors that what they’re
trying to make and sell to is that the buyers are wanting
more like 37,000 square feet. That led me to a question
about so when we’re looking at these applications and we
were trying to balance this gray area between the
neighborhood compatibility, which is clear it doesn’t seem
to fit into the small neighborhood, and then the idea of
the objective standards, what is the right number? When we
started out this process I remember Commissioner O'Donnell
made a motion to reduce the size by a third, and that
seemed like a good stake in the ground, but it was short of
an objective standard.
Then we had ended up denying it on that basis and
the neighborhood compatibility and compliance with General
Plan. It went to Town Council and Town Council explicitly
said that there was no basis for the Planning Commission
choosing a number of a third less, because it doesn’t have
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any kind of objective standard, and that was in the
testimony that was made during the public hearing.
So I get back to the thing about I would like to
find a way that we can make this building smaller, but I
struggle with how do you come up with an objective
standard. I clearly hear what the neighbors want. At least
most of the comments we got recently were 64,000, but where
does that number come from? I also hear that the people who
wrote the EIR might have come up the number that was the
reasonable alternative of 74,000 in the EIR and it might
not have been an objective standard, but it was in the EIR
and it was studied for impacts, which was determined to be
no significant impact.
So then we get back to the thing about traffic,
and so the issue about the size has to pertain to some kind
of impact, and it’s the view and it’s the traffic, and then
the EIR also says that there is no significant impact at
the 93,000 square foot level, and also not at the 74,000
square foot level.
So then I get back to how do we come up with the
right number that is going to be an objective standard that
makes sense and that would make the neighbors happy? I
don’t know what the answer to that is, but I struggle with
that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Then back to the traffic thing, I totally
understand the concerns about traffic, and I know we’ve
seen in the case of many EIRs that what turns out in terms
of the overall traffic doesn’t make a difference, but we
have to all keep in mind that the EIR is only supposed to
evaluate the traffic impact from that particular
application, so in the case of this neighborhood or any
other the fact that there’s a whole lot of traffic in the
neighborhood right now isn’t something that we can use to
turn down the EIR; it has to be based on the traffic from
this particular application.
And this is going to lead to a question for
Staff. Supposing that there really was a huge variance and
the actual traffic that is generated from this application
is way higher than it possibly was. Are there any other
additional mitigations that could be made? Because we
wouldn’t turn down an application because of traffic, we
would ask them to do mitigations to make sure that the
traffic wasn’t as much of an issue.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I did want to…
CHAIR KANE: Oh, I’m sorry. Go for it.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: My question is supposing
that the actual amount of traffic that is generated by this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
application was significantly larger than what was
estimated by the traffic consultants and the ITE trip
generation, the action that we’d be taking with regard to
the EIR is that there would be additional mitigation
required, and so is there any additional mitigation that
the Applicant could make? I know they’ve already agreed to
make some mitigations that weren’t required. Is there
anything that could be done to mitigate traffic relative to
this application?
JOEL PAULSON: I’d say relative to this
application—and Lynn Ambrose may be able to weigh in as
well if necessary—what we have is an EIR that evaluated an
approximately 93,000 square foot building. With the
mitigation measure there are no impacts. We’re now down to
74,000, which presumably would be fewer impacts than the
93,000 that was studied.
There isn’t a mechanism for an after the fact
traffic study to evaluate the traffic that’s actually
generated. Unfortunately, we don’t have the traffic
engineer here this evening, but I would say that’s not the
process that is followed. Once you have a building in the
ground and occupied I’m not aware of the Town going back
and doing additional studies. There could be some
conclusions drawn as future projects come through where you
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
could potentially look at kind of the baselines from pre
and post, but there are no additional mitigations required
pursuant to the Environmental Impact Report, even at the
higher traffic generation.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I understand that. As a
follow up to that, I know in a previous hearing it was said
that the current level of service for that intersection is
Level of Service B, and if I heard it right that additional
mitigation might kick in, which this would factor in the
overall traffic, if it got to Level of Service D, but that
would have to be based on the application, is that correct?
JOEL PAULSON: Generally. I think the Town’s
Traffic Policy does not allow you to drop below one level
of service from what the existing is, and so you can’t drop
two levels, otherwise you would have to mitigate it back up
to at least not dropping one level, and they currently
comply with those requirements.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Anyone else? Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Yes, thank you. I think I have
a little bit maybe different view of our task as compared
to some of the other Commissioners, although not all.
I appreciate Commissioner Janoff’s thorough
review of the complete project with regard to the Los Gatos
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
General Plan and standards. However, the Planning
Commission considered this project once before and denied
it, and it was appealed to the Council, who reviewed it.
The Council, while not approving it, remanded it back to
the Planning Commission for consideration, because of new
information that was provided to them that we didn’t have
the benefit of reviewing, and in remanding it to us they
did not have specific numbers for us to review, but they
had ten areas of modifications that they discussed in
returning it to us, and what that meant to me is that they
had reviewed parts of the project and parts of the project
were acceptable to some of the Councilmembers, and parts
weren’t to others, but that they wanted us to look at some
specific areas.
I don’t view the role of the Planning Commission
as an appeals court for the Town Council; I don’t think it
works that way. I think our role is to look at land use and
issues with the ability that we have to go deeply into
particular areas, and to provide recommendations, and to
approve aspects of certain projects. So I don’t think it’s
within the purview of the Planning Commission to ignore
what the Council did or said, and so while I appreciate all
of the items that were noted, my concerns are a bit
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
narrower and they’re really focused on three areas that
were possible modifications discussed by the Council.
There were ten of them that I could count, and
they appear in the Staff Report of December 8th, page 3. The
ones that I am concerned about are number one, the reduced
square footage, and whether the square footage reduction to
74,000 was information which we had not previously
reviewed, and whether that would accomplish compliance with
standards and guidelines, and with regard to that, that
brought in some other issues, obviously, but I think that
that’s an area that’s legitimate for us to look at and
debate.
The other area that I think there is discussion
about is increased public space and landscaping on the
site, and in particular this is an issue that I raised with
the developer about a dedicated dog park area and whether
that was the use that the neighbors desired, and in looking
at the Council direction I could not see specific direction
as to a dog park, as was indicated in the letter from the
developer, so my proposal earlier was for the developer to
meet with the neighbors and to discuss potential uses of
that space that might be more appropriate or more desired
by both the developer and the neighbors. I didn’t see any
attempt to do that, so that issue to me is still open.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The third one is one that for me could get a
little bit technical, but I do want to get into the
discussion when the Commission thinks it’s the appropriate
time, and that is the information on the role of Caltrans
in the process with regard to the EIR and other traffic and
safety impacts that are created along that corridor. I
don’t want to drag us into that discussion at this point,
but it is a discussion that I would like to have at some
point.
So those are the three areas. The other seven
areas that were in the direction I don’t think are open for
discussion, because I believe that the Applicant provided
clear direction that was consistent with the desires of the
Council, and those were not areas that I feel are in the
purview of the Commission to reopen, because the response
was consistent with the direction from Council. So those
are sort of my comments.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. A few words from the
Chair, unless you have something, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Just a question. I had
originally thought this was a de novo hearing, and that’s
what we’ve talked about, so to say that we are being
governed by what the Council did when they couldn’t reach a
decision and therefore it’s a de novo hearing, confuses me.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
How does one get direction from a Council that couldn’t
make a decision and simply sent it back to us and said it
would be a de novo hearing? Could I have some guidance from
Staff on that?
LYNN AMBROSE: I think I can take that one. It’s
a de novo hearing in that you get to evaluate the project
anew. You can be guided by the Town Council’s conversation,
the transcript of that meeting, but you do not have to… You
can take it into consideration, but you don’t have to be
guided by it. So you’re on your own.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Yes, Commissioner.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Just a quick remark on that
topic. The reason why I think it’s important to think about
that is that I don’t think it’s fair to either the
developer or the residents of the Town to let something go
on forever, and so I think it’s important where they didn’t
make a decision nevertheless to read the record and to
listen to the discussion and guidance that they’ve provided
so that everything doesn’t just completely open up a blank
slate when we’ve already gotten direction from a body that
has in some ways more authority than we do.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Chair?
CHAIR KANE: Yes, sir.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: My understanding is if
we were to deny and to recommend denial, it isn’t like it
ends there. It goes back to the Council, and certainly they
must know what Commissioner Hudes thinks they had in mind.
I don't know what they had in mind. They could not pass a
motion. They could not get three votes on anything besides
sending it back to us without guidance.
I agree with him, this should not go on forever.
If we turn it down here, or recommend turning it down, the
Council doesn’t have to have it go on forever, or they can
either turn it down or approve it with modifications, or
just approve it, so it will not go on forever, but I just
want to respond to that one point. Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: And from a cynical standpoint,
Commissioner, there’s certainly a way to prevent it from
going on forever, and that would be to find a way to
compromise. I went back to the old minutes and the old
films, and with all due respect, Commissioner Hanssen, I’m
just going to play with you for a second.
It was Commissioner Erekson who said one third;
it was in his motion. I was sitting next to him. Tom gets a
lot of credit for everything; I can’t let him have that,
and in respect for his service I want to give him that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
plug. He said please consider one third, and it was in the
motion.
I also went back and listened to the Town Council
on how they struggled to get to something they could agree
with, and with respect to my colleague Commissioner Hudes,
they gave us a clean slate. They had opinions, they said
this, they said that, but the maker of the motion said I’m
sending this back without direction, and it was seconded
and it passed. Now, one can consider the comments made by
Council and consider them very carefully, but that’s not
what was in the motion, and the attorney advised when we
first talked about this two meetings ago, or one meeting
ago, that this was indeed de novo, so we’re taking it from
scratch.
I wanted to add some considerations. I’m the
Chair, I might have the prerogative to do this, but to
everyone listening, we have a long list of concerns from
Commissioner Janoff, and I don't know if this was one of
them or not, but from the General Plan, which is very much
a Bible for us, and then the subsequent Hillside
Guidelines, Commercial Guidelines, Residential Guidelines,
but this is where it all comes from, and it’s right up in
front, Goals and Policies, “Policy LU-1.1, but it says,
“Encourage developers to engage in discussions as early as
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
possible regarding the nature and scope of the project and
possible impacts and mitigation requirements.”
I read that and I thought I wasn’t there, but
maybe somebody wasn’t listening when the 92,000 came up.
There’s nothing like that, and it doesn’t sound like they
got into discussions earlier enough to prevent a disaster.
It’s been a very long time, and time is money, and I don’t
like it to go on forever either, but the way it doesn’t go
on forever either is to try to meet us halfway, more than
halfway. Ninety-two thousand, the kindest way I can refer
to it is a lack of awareness of the Town requirements, the
codes, and how we try to do business, and how we try to
protect our neighborhoods.
“Infill projects shall be designed in context
with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning with respect
to existing scale and character.” It goes on and on and on
in so many places. Small scale, small town. And early on
maybe a clearer message could get about the roadblocks
again, I don't know, but we have passionate language in our
General Plan, in our Commercial Guidelines, and in the Town
Code about protect. We all see our job differently, but if
I put it in a nutshell it would be to protect and preserve
and develop consistent with the guidelines that Town
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Council has given us to adjudicate these matters, and this
particular project doesn’t seem to ring that bell.
I’m not a real estate person, that’s a liability,
could also be an asset. I don’t see the magic in Class A
per se. You can get a higher price for it, and it’s a nicer
building, but if you can’t get a Class A in there, then
maybe a Class B. But I will also add that maybe you can get
a Class A in there. Now, the 74,000 seems to be arbitrarily
pulled out of the EIR where it was arbitrarily inserted,
but we’ve been given evidence from some of the letter
writers, and we’ve got 400 letters, and some of them are
repeats, but I hope you’ve had time to read them. That’s
part of the passion behind the project that supports the
passion behind the words. A whole lot of people think
they’re going to be adversely impacted, and they’ve come
down and come down and have given me a note, and it’s a
real estate, what is it, Cushman & Wakefield, and it shows
that in Los Gatos there’s a Class A office building at
62,000 square feet, and in Los Gatos there’s a Class A
office building at 6,900 square feet.
Part of what I’m doing is adding some thoughts to
the record, and another thought I want to add is that the
Applicant gave us… I ask what’s a Class A? Because I don't
know, and they sent me a letter explaining what a Class A
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was, and one of the experts, I forget the name, it was 42
Second Street, said that Class As can be 200,000 in an
urban setting and can be 50,000 in a suburban setting, and
that was the letter I got from the Applicant; I found that
persuasive.
The very sensitive point to the project, what I
hear over and over again, is economic feasibility. We can’t
do this or that or we give up economic feasibility. I’ve
gone through the General Plan, the Town Code, and the
Commercial Guidelines over… I cannot find economic
feasibility; that is simply not my department. My
department is as stated: To preserve, protect, and
development consistent with our guidelines. There’s a lot
of strong, persuasive language about economic feasibility,
but I just don’t think that’s what’s before me.
So that might be a good place to end it.
Comments, questions? Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Maybe I could follow up with
Staff. The topic of feasibility. How does feasibility come
into the way that we are to review an application? Economic
feasibility.
JOEL PAULSON: Typically the Planning Commission
has not taken that into consideration. That does not
preclude you from taking that into consideration. Typically
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the economic feasibility is an issue that comes up through
lawsuits and moving forward through lawsuits and showing
probably more information on that economic feasibility than
you may have before you this evening, and so you are free
to choose to take that into consideration, but you are not
required to take that into consideration.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: If I may follow up maybe with
the attorney. I was reading about the level of evidence
that a LEED agency must take pursuant to 15091(a), and one
of the considerations is considerations which make
infeasible the alternatives identified in the Final EIR. I
did a little further research on this topic and it seems as
though what we need to look at is whether something is
truly infeasible, not just desirable or a good thing. I
went back and reviewed some of the testimony from the
Applicant, and in hearing the language in using their
description about the type of project, they use language
like, “It would be nice,” or, “It would be attractive to
the market,” but I did not see any specific financial
evidence that would say that it would not be feasible.
So that is where I am in terms of evaluating this
topic of economic feasibility, that yes, number one, it is
an issue that can be evaluated, but two, that there was not
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sufficient evidence presented to us that the project was
infeasible as defined in what I read.
CHAIR KANE: Other comments? Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just to follow up on
Commissioner Hudes’ point. I don’t personally feel we have
enough information on the economic feasibility to make a
determination. That said, the Applicant did provide us with
the rationale behind the reduction from the 83,000 square
feet to 74,000 square feet, indicating that the
commensurate reduction in the cost of construction made
that reduction economically feasible.
Now, that’s not an infinite…that slope changes as
your building size decreases, but with regard to
feasibility of a smaller sized building, I have not seen
evidence presented that it would be infeasible to build a
building that is at the one-third mark that was recommended
in the prior Planning Commission motion. Of all of the
letters that we’ve received from the residents, the two
numbers that stick in my mind are the 52,000 and 62,000
square foot numbers.
With regard to feasibility, I’d be willing to
support the project if I saw the feasibility numbers that
would indicate that a smaller building could be built.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner O'Donnell.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: A couple of points. I
think the standards used for an EIR are different than the
standards used in approving this project or not approving
this project. When you do an EIR you can have an EIR
approved and deny the project. So the standards are
different, and one of the things is you have to consider
the alternatives, and a “no project” alternative, for
example, is often trotted out and doesn’t get much of
anywhere. Then, secondly, as you go down you look at it
like this one did.
Now, the number they used for the lower number
was truly plucked out of the air. People have been giving
that some significance that I don’t think the writers of
the EIR would have attributed to it, and I don’t think they
did.
The day we have to decide whether something is
economically feasible, we’re in the wrong business, because
that is, in my judgment, not a role. They could have come
in and said I want to build a 150,000 square foot building,
because that’s really going to make a lot of money, and
we’re not going to make much money at 89,000, for example.
Are we supposed to judge that, and if we are, what is our
standard? What does it mean to be economically feasible?
Does it mean you make a lot of money? You make a little
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
money? You lose money? We don’t do that. We decide whether
the project complies with the laws here, the regulations
here, and that’s what we do and that’s what we’re supposed
to be able to do. We’re not economists. In any event, even
if we were, and somebody sitting here is maybe, I’m not,
that would not be our role.
Now, let me say this. I’m prepared to make a
motion as soon as people are finished saying what they want
to say, because in a way I’ve gotten the flavor, and maybe
there’s more we want to get, so I don’t want to rush it,
but I’m prepared to make a motion when my fellow
commissioners have gotten whatever they want to say out.
CHAIR KANE: And I’m prepared to receive that
motion unless there are other comments. Commissioner
Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’m prepared to hear the
motion, however, I may have discussion regarding amendments
to CUPs that would be pertinent to add to whatever goes to
the Town Council.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I would invite
Commissioner Janoff to make the motion, because it sounds
like you would be better prepared to do that, and you had a
wonderful listing and discussion of what you have in mind,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so if you would like to make the motion, I would encourage
that.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I can make the motion, but
before I do that I’d like to discuss the amendments to the
CUP that I would like to have the Commission consider.
There are a couple of areas that were of
particular issue to the Commission as well as the
neighbors. One of them had to do with the potential damage
to neighboring properties, and I think we’re all very
interested in the geological and seismic analysis that
various engineers and experts provided. Along the line of
testimony someone had mentioned that one of the ways to
ensure that there isn’t damage to surrounding properties or
neighboring properties is to apply the appropriate
measurement devices to ensure that the construction work
doesn’t damage the neighboring property. To that end, I
would propose an amendment to CUP 76, or where appropriate,
that says, “The developer is to monitor the physical
effects of construction on the foundation of adjacent
residential structures. Specifically, measurements are to
be made in accordance with best testing practices to apply
strain gauges or appropriate data gathering devices to
measure movement, stress, and strain on the neighboring
residential structures. Measurement data shall be delivered
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to Town Staff on a weekly basis and shall be made available
in a format that allows for public access and review.”
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: May I ask a question on
it? If the motion, for example, my motion was going to be
to deny or to recommend, depending on what we’re talking
about, the project, in which case we wouldn’t get into the
conditions of the project we’re not approving. So unless
you have a desire to approve the project, perhaps we can
avoid dealing with things that are not applicable to a
denial.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: The purpose of my comments
are to make sure that wherever the motion goes, whether
approval or denial, the next body that hears the issue has
the opportunity to at least hear the comments that we would
make if there’s consensus to support the modifications to
the CUP as mentioned, so it’s really a comment to go
forward more than an amendment to the motion.
CHAIR KANE: And I think, Commissioner Janoff,
you’ve accomplished that simply by putting it into the
record.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: And I have one other.
CHAIR KANE: Accomplish that one.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: And I want to apologize. I
think this is an important issue. I just wanted to make
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sure that we got all of this in, and so I have a preamble
that’s a little bit lengthy, so bear with me.
Traffic in Los Gatos is an acknowledged problem.
Traffic related disputes are a common public concern heard
by the Planning Commission as well as the Town Council when
new developments are proposed. There is an ongoing dispute
between some of the Town public and Applicant developers,
as represented in the Environmental Impact Analysis or
Traffic Impact Analysis, that the accepted methods for
analyzing traffic impact such as the ITE methodology are
outdated and/or do not adequately reflect the unique
traffic situations of Los Gatos. The public often provides
traffic counts and anecdotal evidence that seem to
contradict the formal analyses.
With that in mind, I’d like to suggest for
discussion that with this development and all future
commercial and perhaps multi-family developments where
traffic impact is a public concern we include traffic
counting devices as an element of the CUP. Such devices
similar to the program in place at Hillbrook School would
provide data to the Town on a weekly basis. Aggregate
project data may be then compared to establish project data
and to determine whether the present methodology used to
analyze traffic impact is adequate, or whether modified or
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
factored methodology is warranted for the Town of Los Gatos
development projects.
In other words, if we count cars and their count
winds up being exactly the same as what the Traffic Impact
Analysis said it would be, then we continue to use the
methodology that’s been traditionally used. However, if the
traffic impact is greater then to a substantial number than
what was estimated in the ITE or the Traffic Impact
Analysis, the Town can use that differential to modify the
results or to consider modifying results, or using a
different methodology when we consider Traffic Impact
Analysis on any future development. We’ve gone around and
around and around on this is a theory and this is an idea,
but if we have data we should be able to gather the data
and use the data to make better decisions in the future.
So the language that I would propose is an
addendum to CUP 104, or where appropriate, and again I
would recommend that this be considered as a CUP element
for all developments going forward. “The development shall
implement vehicle counting devices with failsafe backup to
obtain daily incoming and outgoing traffic counts during
office working hours nominally in this case between the
hours of 7:00am and 6:00pm. Count data shall be delivered
to the Town Staff on a weekly basis and shall be made
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
available in a format that allows for public access and
review.”
That concludes my comments.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you, Commissioner. Well
stated. Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just had a question
regarding one of Commissioner Janoff’s comments, the first
one regarding the geology. I thought that we had already
incorporated in the CUP that there would be monitoring of
the neighboring properties for foundation issues during the
construction phase, and that it was going to happen weekly,
so I don’t recall exactly what the terms were, but I was
pretty sure that we had that already.
JENNIFER ARMER: I believe we did. Mike Weiss
from Public Works is available to answer.
MIKE WEISS: Mike Weiss, Associate Engineer.
Condition of Approval 81, Settlement Monitoring and
Mitigation Plans specs out some specifications and details
as to how that could be monitored and mitigated during the
course of construction, if this application were to
ultimately be approved.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So if I heard you
correctly, yes, there is a condition for settlement
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
monitoring, but the details are not worked out, is that
what you said?
MIKE WEISS: There is a condition, correct. There
are some listed items and details for how that would be
measured, ultimately to be approved and reviewed and
approved by the Town Engineer.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner O'Donnell, would you
care to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I would, but first I’m
going to ask Staff, because we have before us the
Architecture and Site Application, the Conditional Use
Permit, and the Environmental Impact Report, and I assume
that if one were to deny or… Of the first two, and you’ll
have to help me with my recollection, I had understood that
on a use permit that the Town Council had the final say on
use permits, is that correct?
JENNIFER ARMER: That’s incorrect in this case.
In this case the Planning Commission is the deciding body
for all three applications. Any decision by Planning
Commission could be appealed.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, then the next
question I have, and I think it’s the only other question,
if you move to deny the Architecture and Site Application
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the Conditional Use Permit, is it right to also
consider the Environmental Impact Report?
JENNIFER ARMER: You may consider all three, but
if there is a motion to deny the Architecture and Site and
Conditional Use Permit application, then no decision is
required for the environmental review.
CHAIR KANE: We’ve crossed that bridge before.
About six months ago you had the same questions, and
they’re good questions.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: My age, memory isn’t so
good.
All right, I’m going to make a motion that we
deny the Architecture and Site Application S-15-056, and
the Conditional Use Permit U-15-009, on the basis of the
comments that we have made tonight with particular
reference to Commissioner Janoff’s enumeration and the
other comments we’ve made, but Commissioner Janoff actually
listed many. I think the Chair listed some too. That’s the
basis, which I will not repeat, that is in the record, and
that would be, I think, the complete motion. I would not
make a motion on the Environmental Impact Report.
CHAIR KANE: Do we have a second? Commissioner
Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I will second that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Discussion? Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: For the maker of the motion,
are you including every point that Commissioner Janoff made
as a basis for denial?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: No. I think at this
point one can deny this for a number of reasons. Basically,
I don’t think I have to single out each of them, but I
would agree with you that I have not weighed each of the
points that Commissioner Janoff so carefully and diligently
raised, but sufficient to say that a number of those I do
support. If you feel it necessary to separate out some of
those, I would certainly listen to that suggestion.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Well, I’ve already stated
three that I felt were ones that we were directed to look
at by Council, meaning the square footage reduction, the
landscaping and use of that land, and Caltrans and traffic
issues, of which I have specific concerns that were not
resolved.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Since I don’t believe
the Council directed us to do anything, that it’s de novo,
I would not accept that comment. So I’m just going to let
the motion stand as it is with the second, and if anybody
has any specific things they want to include in it, I would
certainly consider that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Well, I will ask for discussion.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Yeah.
CHAIR KANE: Is there any discussion?
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I have a question of Staff, if
I may?
CHAIR KANE: Yes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: With regard to the EIR, I have
some concerns with the EIR. The concerns with the EIR were
not listed as grounds for denial. If the motion passes and
the EIR is not referenced, is it possible for me to include
my concerns with the EIR as part of the record?
JOEL PAULSON: You can add your comments to the
public record, if you wish, prior to a vote.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay.
CHAIR KANE: Question for Staff. If in this
instance Commissioner Hudes was to summarize bullet, could
he follow up with more detail subsequently? Can he submit
those in writing, in other words?
JOEL PAULSON: I would not recommend that,
however, we would not prohibit that.
CHAIR KANE: Okay, thank you. Commissioner
Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: With all due respect to
Commissioner O'Donnell’s motion, and I appreciate all the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
work that Commissioner Janoff did to come up with all the
parts of the General Plan, at this moment in time, although
I heard everything that you said I haven’t had a chance to
really look at all of those things that you mentioned as
reasons for denial, so at this moment in time I’m
uncomfortable with supporting a motion to deny based on a
list of things that I haven’t been able to review and to
incorporate with regard to the project.
Other than that, I’d heard that it’s too big, and
I’m also uncomfortable with that without being specific
about what that is from an objective perspective.
So I guess I don't know what the right way to
resolve it is.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: You can vote no. That
would do it.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I believe that the list of
nonconforming items that I presented is not specifically
attached to the motion, however I did want to comment.
The overriding theme in the list that I’ve
presented is that the project doesn’t meet the scale and
character of the Town of Los Gatos, specifically as
mentioned in those comments or in the General Plan
elements, and that the scenic views are largely obliterated
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with the new building, so the overriding theme that runs
through most of these, and I appreciate that not everyone
has had a chance to review them in detail and may not agree
with what I’ve listed, but that was my perspective, just to
give you that background.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me say what I had in
mind, because it may not be complete enough, and we could
do that. In making my motion I was actually thinking very
simply. I think the project is too large, and because of
its size it takes away from the view, it is not consistent
with the neighborhood, and it doesn’t use good
architectural planning. I think the two stories; their
lateral scope is too great. That pretty much sums it up. I
think the traffic report, as I said before, I don’t have a
lot of confidence, and I don’t blame the people who did the
traffic report, they all rely on the same things, which I,
in my experience in the years that I’ve done this, is
consistently wrong, and the proof of that pudding is to
watch the traffic after the buildings are built, and I have
done that for years. People parachute in here and give us
their opinions from a book that is good throughout the
country, and I personally don’t accept that, so all those
reasons that I’ve said. I don’t have to go over each and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
every point that Commissioner Janoff wisely mentioned, but
those that I just said, which are fairly discreet and not
lengthy are the basis for my motion.
CHAIR KANE: Further discussion or a vote?
Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: With the comments that
Commissioner O'Donnell made, I’m more comfortable with the
motion, as I am opposed to the project, but I’m glad we’re
not including every item that Commissioner Janoff proposed
as the complete grounds, although I am glad that that
information is being entered into the record and will be
part of the testimony that would be considered, should this
item be further considered. So I will be supporting the
motion to deny, given that broader basis.
I would like at this point to speak about some
concerns I have with the EIR and with the way the EIR is
being completed with regard to traffic.
CHAIR KANE: Proceed.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: My concern is that we have a
gridlock situation that’s directly linked to cut-through
traffic, and that situation is not being analyzed by our
Traffic Impact Analysis that I’ve seen, and this is a
highly predictable condition that occurs and recurs on
certain days of the week, Fridays and weekends, and it not
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
only puts gridlock onto some arteries, it also prevents
access to side streets and driveways, and that’s where my
concerns come in about this project.
The Town has adopted a temporary study fix for
this solution, but does not have a permanent fix or
resolution for this issue, and it needs to be approved by
Caltrans, I think. The way it’s important, and the reason I
want to go on the record on this, is that the General Plan
says in Traffic 3.7 that, “All traffic reports shall
include analyses of nearby uses with unusual or unique
traffic generation factors or peak hours,” and I think that
this is an example of that.
I also think that Caltrans guidelines on
preparation of traffic impact studies states that seasonal
and weekend variations in traffic should also be considered
where appropriate, and I don’t see that in the traffic
report that we have.
There is substantial public testimony to this
condition, yet the condition was not mentioned in the NOP,
DEIR, the TIA, or the EIR, and from what I could tell
traffic measurements were only taken on two dates, January
21, 2015 and May 13, 2015.
I also want to enter into the record that while
we rely on expert testimony and reports, we are not
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
restricted to this according to the California Court of
Appeals that said that, “Relevant personal observations of
area residents on non-technical subjects may qualify as
substantial evidence,” and in the case that was cited,
specifically they talked about residents’ observations of
traffic conditions.
The way this impacts this project is in two ways.
One is the TIA may be flawed, although I’m not
really technically qualified to break that down, but I
think it’s based on ignoring information that is available.
Number two, I think there’s evidence that an
unsafe condition can be created with hundreds of senior
citizens living on a street that may become inaccessible
when gridlock is occurring at the entrance to Alberto Way,
and in order to mitigate this issue I believe that it’s
necessary to widen Alberto Way to accommodate emergency
vehicle access. The current proposal to widen it, which
took a lot of digging to find out how much that actually
was, is 3’, and that seems to be inadequate to accommodate
emergency vehicle access, which is generally required to be
14’, especially since trees will be planted on the strip
just adjacent to the roadway, so it’s not even possible for
emergency vehicles to just kind of push through some of
that as well, and our General Plan policy says that, “New
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/14/2018
Item #4, 401-409 Alberto Way
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
development shall be accessible to emergency vehicles and
shall not impede the ability of service providers to
provide adequate emergency response.” That’s SAF-7.4.
So for those reasons I have concerns about the
EIR itself, and I think it has implications in future
applications that we may be seeing as well.
CHAIR KANE: Outstanding. Outstanding
contributions by all. Let’s vote. All those in favor of the
motion? Opposed? It’s unanimous, 6-0. Mr. Paulson, are
there appeal rights?
JOEL PAULSON: There are appeal rights. Anyone
who is not satisfied with the decision of the Planning
Commission can appeal that decision to the Town Council.
The appeal must be filed within ten days. There’s a fee for
filing the appeal, and the appeal forms are available in
the Clerk’s Office.