The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 06BBuchalter January 3, 2018 VIA E-MAIL (JARMER@LOSGATOSCA.GOV) & FEDEX Ms. Jennifer Armer Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Phone: { 408) 354-6872 Email: jarmer@losgatosca.gov 55 Second Street Sule 1700 San Francisco, CA 94105 415.227.0900 Phone 415.227.0770 Fax File Number. L4342-0002 415.227.3508 Direct aguerra@buchalter.com Re: January 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting -Responses to Commission Comments from December 13, 2017 Meeting for 401-409 Alberto Way Architecture and Site Application S-15-056; Conditional Use Permit Application U-15-009 APN 529-23-018 As you know, Buchalter represents LP Acquisitions, the developer of the project located at 401- 409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos. At its meeting of December 13, 2017, the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission offered comments and raised questions regarding the Architecture and Site Application S- 15-056, Conditional Use Permit Application U -15-009, and Environmental Impact Report EIR.-16-001 for the 401-409 Alberto Way Project (the "Alberto Way Project''). All of the comments that the Planning Commission received at its December 13, 2017 meeting are the same comments that the commenters submitted in August 2016, March 2017, April 2 017, May 2017, September 2017 and October 2017 for the 91,965 square foot building (Original Project) and the 83,000 square foot building ("Second Redesignn) and the modifications to the Second Redesign presented to the Town Council at its meeting in September, 2017 ("Second Redesign"). The attached matrix summarizes the responses to all of the prior comments and includes responses specific to the 7 4,260 square foot building ("Third Redesign") presented to the Planning Commission (See Exhibit A). The project team addressed these comments in multiple submittals to the Planning Commission and Town Council as summarized below and contained in the September 27, 2017 submittal to Jennifer Armer for cons ideration at the Los Gatos Town Council (See Exhibit B). Additionally, this letter responds to the following specific comments for which the Commission requested written responses at the conclusion of its meeting on December 13th: BN 31665449vl buchalter.com Los A n geles Napa Valley Orange County Sacramento San Francisco Scottsdale fiXHl9{r 2 3 Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer January 3, 2018 Page2 • Provide width, length, and area of land being dedicated to the Town for street widening; • Construction management plan -additional details beyond the information provided in the project letter submitted November 7th; • Explain what makes office space "Class A" office space; • Provide details of the TOM Program, specific to the CAT shuttle that could be included as a condition of approval; • Descnbe possible options to work toward a single level ofundecground parking, or a clear explanation as to why a single level is not feasible; and • Clarify how much square footage would be dedicated and included as part of Alberto Way and explain whether an emergency vehicle will be able to drive down the street. Alberto Way Dedication The Planning Commission requested information regarding the width, length, and area of land being dedicated to the Town for street widening. In particular, the Commission requested this information in order to understand the future road width and emergency access during construction (clarify when in the construction timeline the new sidewalks and road widening would actually occur, since it may not be until the end of construction). Response- According to Kiec & Wright, the Project engineer, LP Acquisitions is dedicating approximately 355 feet of the Property to the Town for additional right-of-way. This length begins at the property's boundary near the intersection of Saratoga -Los Gatos Road and Alberto Way and continues east along the Project's frontage. The width of the dedicated frontage begins at approximately 2. 8' and widens to 3.1' along the curve (about 325' east of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road) and eventually tapers back to the original property line. The total area of the land being dedicated is approximately 978 square feet . The offsite work is scheduled to begin at the same time as the Core & Shell building construction and the estimated timeline for completion is concurrent with the Core & Shell's construction schedule. This work is estimated to start 6.75 months from the beginning of construction and should be completed 12.75 to 14 months after the project's start date. Alberto Way's sidewalk along the project's frontage will be closed during construction and all pedestrian traffic will be relocated to the other side of the street. Alberto Way will remain open during the duration of the project for emergency vehicle access. Construction Management Plan The Planning Commission requested additional details beyond the information provided in the project letter submitted on November 7, 2017 regarding the construction management plan. The Commission also asked for potential measures that could be conditions of approval to help neighbors be more comfortable with excavation and dewatering and impact to through traffic on Alberto Way. The Commission requested a map showing locations on site for different storage/offloading locations. BN 31665449vl Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer January 3, 2018 Page3 Response- lnformation regarding the conceptual construction management plan was summarized in the Septemher 27, 2017 submittal to the Town Council and identified in the matr..x in Exhibit A The attached Preliminary Construction Diagram contained in Exhibit C depicts the proposed construction traffic management plan. The Town's process requires that a Construction Management Plan be submitted and approved during the construction process, not during the planning approval process. Nonetheless, in response to the neighbors and Planning Commission's questions, LP Acquisitions would coordinate the construction process so as to not impact through traffic on Alberto Way as well as emergency vehicles. LP Acquisitions has indicated on numerous occasions that no off-haul excavation would occur during the AM or PM peak hour traffic periods between 7-9am and 4-6pm. Additionally, the proposed Third Redesign allows for all construction vehicles to be staged on-site. · Class "A" Office Space Criteria The Planning Commission requested additional information regarding what makes office space Class "A" 1 office space, and explain why the minimum for a Class "A" office building just happens to be 74,260 square feet, the EIR's recommended size for the Reduced Scale Alternative as described on page S-8 of the Draft EJR. 1 Class "A" Office definition by42 Floors: Class A buildings are coveted, highly sought spaces of significant size, usually in a central locatioo. In a central business district, this could mean 250,000 square feet or more of office space; in a suburban location or smaller metropolitan area, a 50,000 square foot building might qualify. These prestigious buildings compete for premier office tenant.a. They have high occupancy rates and often will house only a handful of notable companies. Size and location are only part of the equation, however; Class A buildings possess top-notch qualities that demand higher rents, like superior infrastructure, state-of-tho-art technology capabilities, high-tech security, and the latest in elevator and HV AC systems. Amenities abound for tenants of a Class A building. Concierge and outstanding security services are standard. A Class A building may have an indoor atrium featuring abundant greenery and a soothing water feature. Another may have a food court with cares, restaurants, and coffee shops for workday breaks. Mail collection and copying services are often in-house, providing a valued convenience. On-site parking is another frequait amenity of this building class. Systems and amenities are important, but aesthetics are what really give Class A buildings the "wow" fuctor. Finishes can be mahogany and imported tile, lobbies are luxuriously appointed with marble and glass, and the whole building exudes professional elegance. Overall architectural design also tends to be notable in Class A structures, employing the latest technology for benchmark-setting efficiency. Arresting architecture draws attention and brands the building as an image-defining office structure. Class A buildings aren't always new buildings--renowned structures with stellar ownership in prime neighborhoods are often Class A buildings due to market presence. They compete with othec prestigious buildings for the same kind of discerning, image-conscious client. See https:!/42floors.com!edu/bevond-the-basics/determini11g-the-class-of-a11- o(fice-buildi11g. BN 31665449vl Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer January 3, 2018 Page4 Response- The revised Project at 74,260 square feet with the reduction in the footprint in the subsurface parking garage is feasible, as explained in my client's November 7th letter. As LP Acquisitions has indicated on numerous occasions, a key project objective is to build a Class "A" office building in the Los Gatos market. We outlined the specific factors that are critical to the development of a Class" A" office building in this market sector in prior letters to the Commission and the Town Council (see e .g., attached Letter to Mayor Sayoc dated September 27, 2017) . An even smaller office building surrounded by more surface parking in order to compensate for the loss of a floor of underground parking would mean that the building's developer would be unable to provide secured parking for its tenants and unable to accommodate the types of building populations,~amenities and features that are common and expected in a Class "A" office building. In addition, the cost per square foot would substantially increase to accommodate the requested revisions, making the project economically infeasible as described in the Applicant's Letter dated November 7, 2017 on file with the Town of Los Gatos Planning Department and incorporated by reference. Today's office and high technology tenants that lease Class "A" office buildings do so with the understanding that the individual floor plate sizing will accommodate the requisite number of open office cubicles, private offices, conference rooms and amenity spaces for an efficient workspace, with the proper level of office population and interaction per floor required in a modern high technology work environment. Please see the attached letters from Gregg von Thaden, Avison Young, and also Justin M . Riley, Colliers International, both brokers who have ex.tensive experience leasing Class "A" office buildings throughout Silicon Valley, contained in Exhibit D . As Mr. von Thaden and Mr. Riley both state, more than 95% of developed Class "A" office space provides larger floor plates ranging from 35,000 to 40,000 square feet . As has been demonstrated by the millions of square feet of recent low and midrise office space constructed throughout Silicon Valley and beyond, floor plates smaller than 37,000 square feet are not capable of properly accommodating the aforementioned needs of today's modern office and/or high technology tenants. Any further reduction in floor plate size will result in a building that is untenable from both economic cost of construction and leasing marketability standpoints. High technology tenants demand large, open floor plates, capable of supporting amenity areas that are separate from the traditional work (cubicle and office) spaces for informal break-out and collaboration areas that foster team interaction and brainstorming as stated in Mr. von Thaden's letter. Please refer to the attached 1lxl7 floor plans of +/-37,000 square foot floor plates for other, recent developer projects/buildings in Silicon Valley illustrating layouts that exemplify the above description of a modern, efficient, high technology workspace with the requisite amenity areas demanded by today's Class 'A' tenants. We have also provided some photos of these work environments to further support the need for floor plates no smaller than 37,000 square feet (see Exhibit D). TDM Program-CAT Shuttle Details The Planning Commission asked that the Applicant provide details of the CAT shuttle-(vehicle size, service hours, general route, number of special events, etc.) that could be included as a condition of approval if the Project were approved. BN 31665449vl Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer January 3, 2018 Pages Response- LP Acquisitions is committed to implementing measures to reduce the Project's carbon footprint whether it involves prov:icting ~shuttle, designating carpool parking stalls with charging stations for 24 clean air vehicles, 36 bicycle stalls or a pedestrian/bicyck.lride-share program. The CAT ("Community Area Transit") is a 28-passenger shuttle that will make a continuous loop (every 30minutes ), free of charge for tenants, neighbors, and residents to use Monday through Friday, from 10:30am until 3:30pm; and for a few special events in Los Gatos each year. As part of the Applicant's commitment to innovation and creativity, LP Acquisitions provided the following demonstrations of the free downtown Los Gatos shuttle service on the following dates and times: 1. August 12-13, 2017 (Fiesta de Artes); Saturday: 9:30am to 9:30pm. Sunday: 8:30am to 5:30pm 2. August 25-26, 2017 (Annual Summer Sidewalk Sale); Friday and Saturday: 10:30am to 3:30pm 3. September 14-15, 2017: Thursday and Friday: 10:30am to 3:30pm. Ridership during all three demonstrations was solid and many of the riders were residents, working professionals, and some visitors from out of town. Approximately 40 of the Alberto Way neighbors rode the shuttle during the Fiesta de Art.t:::i event. During the September demonstration, LP Acquisitions had over 70 students ride the shuttle. Most of the students were 9th graders who have yet to obtain their driver's licenses. The majority of the students visited downtown food retailers after school, while their parents were able to avoid after-school traffic. Bob Mistele and Kristi Grasty at the Los Gatos Unified School District were instrumental in advising the students and their parents about the shuttle. Downtown businesses offered positive feedback regarding the benefit of the shuttle to bringing potentially over 300 new customers to downtown every day while minimizing traffic or parking impacts. During the :free shuttle demonstrations, some of the downtown merchants informed LP Acquisitions that their business revenues increased during the demonstration. The demonstration rides indicate that the CAT will enable building occupants and residents in the area to visit downtown for lunch or shopping without adversely affecting downtown traffic or the limited supply of parking spaces. Please see attached Shuttle Information Sheet and Shuttle Stops Map in Exhibit E. Hexagon previously submitted an analysis of the effectiveness of the CAT shuttle as a TDM measure as further discussed in Exlnbit E. We also previously submitted the proposed language to be added to Condition of Approval # 103 which proposed operational details of the CAT shuttle. The revised Condition of Approval #103 provides: Applicant/Develope.r2 hereby agrees and acknowledges that it shall provide (i) lessees of the project, (ii) senior citizens, neighbors and community members, (iii) all Los Gatos students (including the Los Gatos High students), and (iv) visitors to the Town (collectively, the "Community Beneficiaries") with access to, and use of, a shuttle service (hereinafter the "Shuttle 2 1his condition may apply to the building tenant if the Tenant desires to control the CAT operations, in which case the operational details of this condition will be reflected in the lease terms. For purposes of this condition, "Applicant/Developer" shall refer to "Tenant" under such circumstances. BN 3 1665449vl Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer January 3, 2018 Page6 Service"), which Shuttle Service shall transport the Community Beneficiaries to and :from the project and certain locations within the Town (which locations are more particularly shown on the map attached hereto). Applicant/Developer shall provide the Shuttle Service to the Community Beneficiaries, free of charge, Monday through Friday, from 10:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m., and for three (3) on~day public events chosen by the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce with input from the Town Manager. Applicant/Developer may, but shall not be obligated to provide the Shuttle Service to the Community Beneficiaries for additional events not expressly stated in the preceding sentence. The Applicant's/Developer's obligation to provide the Shuttle Service to the Community Beneficiaries shall be binding upon the Applicant/Developer and its respective successors and assigns, and may be amended, supplemented, terminated or modified only by an instrument in writing executed by the Applicant/Developer (or its successors and assigns) and the Town. The Applicant's/Developer's obligation to provide the Shuttle Service to the Community Beneficiaries shall be binding upon the Applicant/Developer and its respective successors and assigns, and may be amended, supplemented, terminated or modified only by an instrument in writing executed by the Applicant/Developer (or its successors and assigns) and the Town. Size of the Underground Parking Garage The Commission requested that the Applicant describe possible options for a single level of underground parking, or to provide a clear reasoning as to why a single level is not feasible. Response - We previously submitted extensive information regarding the underground garage as shown in Exhibit A. Further reductions in the size of the building to 56,000 square feet or less than 62,000 square feet as requested by the comm.enters are not feasible as a result of a desire to reduce the parking garage to a single level. Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." As we previously stated, the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of on-site alternatives include site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, and jurisdictional boundaries. Reducing the building by another 10,000 square feet or more would not significantly reduce the less-than-significant impacts of the 74,260 square foot building because the Third Redesign already reduces the impacts to the residents along the northern property boundary and provides extensive site frontage landscape screening. A single level underground parking garage is not feasible for the 74,260 square foot building. Multiplying 74.260 x 4 = 298 parking spaces required, less 38 surface spaces, yields 260 spaces required in the garage. Four Hundred and Twenty (420) square feet is required per car (based on the current garage layout, including circulation space) which yields a total area of 109,200 square feet for a single level underground parking garage. This area will not fit within the setback lines and even if it did, it would completely eliminate the construction staging area on the front side of the site which was requested by the Town and the neighbors. The podium would occupy the entire underground area and BN 31665449vl Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer January 3, 2018 Page7 would still be short by 10,000 square feet . Also, the podium would not allow heavy weighted trucks to park and deliver. Jn addition, eliminating the new, addoo amenity areas on the north side of the building and replacing these with additional surface parking is infeasible, as a minimum of 60 feet in width is required for a double row of parking with a center drive aisle (most efficient layout) and only 46 feet in width is available assuming a 5-foot landscape setback at the property line and a 5-foot landscape buffer at the building. Accordingly, providing additional surface parking to offset a reduction in the amount of below- grade parking would not be a feasible option given the site constraints . Furthermore, the Town's motivation for making the garage one level below grade is based primarily on the erroneous claims made by Dr. Geissler that it is impossible to design a below-grade garage that will not leak or flood. As the Project design and engineering plans demonstrated at the Planning Commission meeting of December 13th, and will further demonstrate when LP Acquisitions submits fully engineered plans and calculations for the building permit, these comments are irresponsible and conflict with empirical data for thousands of multi-level subsurface parking garages designed and constructed throughout the world. When the garage is properly designed and engineered, the conditions Dr. Geissler claims will happen will not actually occur, as the Alberto Way project team and other design and engineering teams have designed thousands of underground parking garages below the water table that do not le&c, do not flood, and perform as designed (see ENGEO supplemental ~es inciuded with prior Town Council staff reports). The design and engineering of this underground parking garage will be no different; it will be properly engineered and waterproofed as explained in our prior submittals such that it will not leak or flood or cause any subsidence of land on any adjacent public or private property, either during its construction when dewatering occurs, or after its completion. As evidence that subsurface garages have been constructed, projects with similar underground parking garages in the local Silicon Valley area include the Netflix Building on Winchester Blvd in Los Gatos, Stadium TechCenter at 5450 Great America Parkway in Santa Clara, the Sobrato Building currently under construction at 599 Castro Street in Mountain View, and numerous high-rise development projects in Downtown San Jose. EN GEO further confirmed that the Netflix Building A located at 100 Winchester Circle has a parking half-floor under the building pedestal, plus two full floors of parking below. This structure demonstrates that buildings with multiple levels of below grade parking have been built in Los Gatos. Width of Alberto Way The Planning Commission asked if an emergency vehicle will be able to drive down Alberto Way with the Project roadway improvements to Alberto Way. Response- Alberto Way will be designed in accordance with Town of Los Gatos standards, and the road will be of sufficient right-of-way width to accommodate emergency vehicle traffic as discussed in the BIR and prior correspondence. BN 3166S449v1 Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer January 3, 2018 Page8 Comments Regarding Design of Parking Garage Dr. Geissler and neighborhood residents continue to suggest that a two-level parking garage would pose safety concerns to the adjacent residences in the neighborhood due to excavation of the building foundation. ENGEO's design-level geotechnical report, response to peer review letter, and supplemental response letters contained in the Draft EIR and the Applicant's prior submittals as identified in Exhibit A were all signed and stamped by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer. In California, experts practicing in geotechnical engineering obtain additional licensure beyond the professional civil engineering registration. A registered Geotechnical Engineer (GE} is a professional who demonstrates a minimum of four years of qualifying soils experience beyond what is required for licensure as a civil engineer. Moreover, a GE needs to be recommended by at least four professional engineers and passes an additional examination on geotechnical engineering before becoming registered A GE is recognized by the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists as a professional who demonstrates a higher level of knowledge and judgment over a Professional Civil Engineer on geotechnical subjects. We are confident that the geotechnical engineers supporting the 401-409 Alberto Way project are knowledgeable on the standard of care in geotechnical engineering within California. We note that Dr. Geissler is not a registered GE in the State of California or anywhere else in the United States based on publicly available information r e garding Dr. Geissler's credentials. Moreover, ENGEO's conclusions and recommendations on the proposed development were peer reviewed by Mr. Robert Wright, Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG} and Mr. Christopher Coutu, Geotechnical Engineer (GE), two highly reputable practitioners with AMEC, who have worked on and reviewed many large public projects in the Bay Area including in the Town of Los Gatos. The Town of Los Gatos Public Works Department reviewed and accepted the conclusions ofENGEO and the Town's peer review consultants and considered those reports in determining appropriate conditions of approval for the Project. Certain members of the Planning Commission also raised questions about the need for post- construction monitoring. The primary concern of the Town and various public commenters is that dewatering during construction of the proposed below grade parking structure could cause settlement and foundation distress to offsite properties. Based on ENGEO's experience with dewatering projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, periodic monitoring of established survey monuments and groundwater wells during construction are typical measures employed to assess the potential for dewatering-related distress to offsite properties. When dewatering wells are turned off at the completion of construction, groundwater levels will equalize and resume typical seasonal fluctuations . Because the potential mechanism for settlement (i.e. dewatering) would only occur during construction, post-construction monitoring would serve no purpose and is not required as explained at the December 13, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. BN 3 I 665449v1 Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer January 3, 2018 Page9 Conclusion The Third Redesign is consistent with the Town's Commercial Design Guidelines and preserves the small town character of Los Gatos as further discussed in the attachments to this letter. Substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project's environmental impacts will be fully mitigated to a less-than- significant level, and that the Third Redesign is feasible and fully addresses the comments raised by the public and the Planning Commission. We appreciate your consideration of our responses and look forward to the Planning Commission's consideration of the Alberto Way Project in January. Sincerely, BUCHALTER A Professional Corporation By £• AG:sl Exhibits cc (via email): Randy Lamb Shane Arters Jolie Houston Gary Black Ollie Zhou Dan Mitchell Dan Kirby BN 31665449v1 Uri Eliahu, GE Gregory Cubbon, CEG, PE Robert H. Boeche, CEG Alicia Guerra This Page Intentionally Left Blank Comments Aesthetics Revised project description (PD) fails to address size & mass of buildings (PLO, 8); revised building is nearly 2 ~~ times sf of existing office buildings and should be reduced by 1/3 to !-2. size and scale not suitable for surrounding neighborhood of mostly senior residents. Revised PD Allows Tenants.to look into Las Casitas windows (PLG, 8} BN31572llM EXHmrrA 405 Alberto Way (Formerly 401-409) Alberto Way Project Planning Commission Comments and Respon!eJ Matrix January 10, 2018 Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Please refer to Apj>licant Response Letter dated DEIR Section 3.1, page 3· l I addressed potential August.18, 20i6and.Jlages 1~7 ofthe Applicant impacts of the larger project footprint Tile Response Letter dated March I 7, 2017 (Summary of Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, ArdtitecturaJ Changee and responses to comments by W 16: Applicant Response Letter dated March 17. Thomas O'Oonnetl and Matthew Hudes). Al.so see 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and Draft EIR Section 3.1 which concluded the projecf s responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell aesthetic impacts \Vert: less than significant. Third and Matthew Hudes) explains how the impacts Redesign further reduces Project size to 74,260 sf. were further reduced with project changes and and results in an almost 10,000 sf reduction smaller footprint Sec the Applicant Letter dated compared to1he.Ori&inal Project as discussed in the November 7, 2017 regarding the further reduction January 2, 2018 lettcr from Buchalter. in the project with the Third Redesign. The revised project has relocated the building an Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 additional 10 feet away from the north property line, (response to comment I. ii. by Charles Erekson). thus affording the Las Casitas residents more privacy DEIR page 3-11 addressed potential impacts of than did the ori&inaldesign and further minimizing the larger project footprint and concluded the impacts as planned on page 2 of the Applicant impacts were less tban significant. Tile Second Response Letter datee. March 17. 2017. In addition. and TI1frd Redesigns further reduce the less-than- the revised pr0ject eliminates the second-floor significant impacts . exterior balcony on the north side of the Building. Generous landscape s:reening (trees and shrubs) has been added into this new setback area, further increasing the visible buffer between the two adjacent properties. further revisions were made in the Third Redesign to preserve l>fivacy for residents as explained in 1he November 7, 2017 letter. Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed {in addition to this matrix) Blocks views of Santa Cruz Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated DEIR page 3-10 addressed less-than-significant ?vfountains(PLCi.8-9) ~larch 17, 2017 lSummary of Architectural Changes visual impacts of the original project. The and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell Applicant Response Letter dated Mardi 17. 2017 and Matthew Hudes). The Third Redesign reduces (Summary of Architectmal Changes and massing and square footage in the northern portion of responses to comments by Thomas O 'Donnell the building to provide a more expansive view of the rutd Matthew Hudes) described the further Santa Crllz Mountains. reduction in visual impacts associated with the reduced project footprint .. The Third Redesign further reduces impacts to views of the San:a Cruz Mountains as presented at the December 13, 2017 Planning Commission meeting and in the November 7. 2017 letter . Negative aesthetic impacts The revised project description in the Second and DEIR page.s 3-10 through 3-13 addressed less- (contrary to EIR); concerned Third Redesigns relocated the building an additional than-significant light and glare impacts offae about glare and shadows and 10 feet away from the north property line, :ind has original projecc. See also Applicant Response people being able to see into eliminated the second story balcony on the north-side Letter dated March 17. 2017 (response to tenants' \\oindows (PLG, 33) ofthe building, thus affording the Las Casitas comment l. ii. by Charles Erekson) and the resident~ more privacy than did the previous design. Applicant Response Letter dated November 7. The redesign eliminates shadows on the property to 2017. the nortt., except during the e).1reme winter months when shadows would still be cast by the existing building> and trees on the current properly. Generous landscas:e screening (trees and shrubs) has been added into this new setback area. funher increasing the visible buffer between the two adjacent properties. Glare off the north-facing windows of the new building is not possible as the sun does not strike the north side of the building. Architecture should be in The Third Redesign further reduces the scale and Page 3-10 through 3-13 of the DEIR addressed keeping with existing residential massing of the building as shown at the Planning less-than-significant visual impacts of the original neighborhood. and lower Commission meeting on December 13. 2017. project. Applicant Response Letter dated August building height, etc. 18. :?016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17 , 2017 (Summary of Architectural 01anges and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes); Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, 2017 and November 7, 2017 regarding Third Redesign. 2 BN 3157:!3:!1v l Comments Response to Comment Project Document in wldcb Comment Addressed (in addition tO this matrix) Ensure that new development Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, reinforces and supports the August 18, 2016 and pag~ 1-3 of the Applicant 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, special qualities of the Town .of ~sponse Letter dated March 17. 2017 (Summary of 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and Los Oatos (PLG, 47) Architectural Changes and responses to comments by responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D. Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and T\fatthew Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See Hudes). The Project incorporated recommendations Applicant Response Letter dated September 27, from the Town's consulting architect, Cannon Design 2017 which addressed the Second Redesi,gn and Group, including eliminating tower elements, the Applicant Response Letter dated November 7, eliminating the.second-fl06)C exterior balcony on the 2017 regarding the Third Redesign and how the narth-side of'the Building. The design retains its changes to the project further reduce the size and Mission-Style architecture which maintains the small scale of the building. town feel and resembles other nearby commercial ckvelopments in Los Gat05. A1rQa11fty " ImpactS are understated and Please refer to tht Hexagon Transportation Draft pages 3-3 I to 3-38 and Conditions of mitigatims inadequate (PLG, Consultants. Inc. April 21, 2017 Response to Traffic Approval 18-20 address the transportation control 33-34) Comments on.401-409 AJ'Jerto Way Traffic Study measures and air quality mi tigation measures that • Furnace upgrade does not {"Hexagon Supplemental :~esponses"), including the would eliminate potential conflicts with the Clean H~xagon April S, 2017 Response to Traffic Air Plan . The Transportation Management Plan reduce vehicle emissions Comments on 401-409 Aberto Way Traffic Study (which includes measures to reduce vehicular • Electric vehicle charging ('Rexagon Aprils"' Respcmses"). As indicated in the trips) is not voluntary; it is mandatory per systems will nat reduce ''Overall Traffic Conditior1 s" section of the Hexagon Condjtion 99. All air quality impacts will be emissions April 5111 Responses, the re-striping of south bcund mitigated to a less than sign ificant level; Hexagon • Restriping Alberto Way will Alberto Way at the intersection would improve Response Letter. not reduce congestion vehicular flow and reduce queuing on Alberto Way. • Trip reduction program is With respect to TDM measures. please see response voluntary to Comment 2 in the Hexagon Supplemental • Inconsistent with 20 l 0 aean Responses. The TIA ana~vzed project impacts AitPlan without taking into acoount further reductions due to • Pollutant concentrations will T:>M measures. Nonetheless, TDM is a standard affect sensitive receptors program for reducing vehicular trip generation . 3 BN 3 1S7:?3:!M Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addresed (In addition to this matrix) Water table issues (PLG. 27) See Response to Comments 1-10 to the Geissler DEIR Section 3.5, Geology and Soils and • Water Table is too shallow Letter and Response to Comment 14, including the ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, Response to Comment 2 to the Geissler Engineering California. Geotechnical Exploration Report • Liquefaction issues Letter and Alberto Way Citizens. Bob Burke and dated July 17, 2015. Rev. August B, 2015. • Risk of Existing Fill Pueblo de Los Gatos Leners in the ENGEO April 19th ENGEO Supplemental Response to Public • Boring completed during Supplemental Responses. Also see response to Comments dated April 19. 2017 in Exhibit 1 drought Comment If regarding the borings. r'ENGEO April 19'h Supplemental Responses"). • Possible shifting of See the Applicant Response Lett er dated foundations due to dewatering September 27. 2017 regarding responses to coffer dam and soil subsidence geotechnical concerns raised before the Town • Underground water diversion Council meeting and the November 7, 20 L 7 for underground parking Letter regard ing the design changes in the Titird • Bottom of foundation of Redesign. garage wou Id be 10-12 feet below water table Water table has risen See Response to 2C to the Las Casitas Letter in the Section 3.5 , Geology and Soils in the Draft EIR significantly since June. 2015 ENGEO April t '1" Supplemental Responses. Also and ENGEO. Inc .• 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos , borings (PLG, 28). No see response to Alberto Way Citizens Comments 11, California. Geotechnical Exploration Report groundwater levels reported in 2C, 3C. 3 D and the response to Geissler Engineering dated July 17, 2015. Rev. August 13. 2015. Boring Bl or 83. Comment3. ENGEO April 19'h Supplemental Responses. 4 BN 31S7:?3:?l\'l Comments Response to Comment Project Document In which Comm~nt Addr~HM (in addiffen to th~ mRfrll) Hydrology impacts not revealed • Section 3.8 ofthe Oran EJR evaluated hydrology Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality in the in EIR {PLG. 29) and water quality impacts. See Response to Draft EIR and ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Comment16in1he A WLC' Letter in the EN GEO Los Gatos, California, Geotechn.ical Expforation • Adverse impacts on April 19, 2017 Resi:onsc to Public C'onunents. Repott elated July 17, 2015. Rev. August 13, surrounding properties caused Construction of the parking garage would not 2015: ENGEO April 1~11 Supplemental by underground parking result in any new significant Responses. This issue was addressed for the • Water table was measured at geologic/geotechnic.nl, hydrology or health and Second Redesign in the Applicant Response lowest possible time safety impacts. Letter dated November 7, 2017 and for the Third • Water depth issues ~. The Project will not burden the existing storm Redesign by EN GEO at the December 13, 2017 • Drought recovery issue ' drainage~ because the Projecfs stonnwater Plallning Commission meeting and in the January • Storm-drainage system is will .be collected ant conveyed through a storm 2, 2018 letter to the Planning Commission overcapacity drain that nms alonB the western property line. regarding additional comments to be addressed • Address impacts to swnp near the Caltrans right of way. along the back of prior to the January 10, 2018 Planning pumps{afso see, BVV 4) the neighboring parcel. PI ease see the attached Commission meeting. civil drawings prepared by Kier ;-Wright (Exhibit 2), which specifically reforence tbe upsize from an 8" to 18" storm drain pipe in the adjacent property. The larger pipe is sized to accommodate the flow 'from a 10-yeanain ·~vent, which is the largest design rain event that the Town's City standards require pipe inftastt 1cture to be designed to. • The two sump pumps that wi II convey the storm water on this Project are designed to convey the water ofa 10-year storm. Tfthe pmnps fail, the water will rise in thr. pump's manhole and will spill into an overflo1.v pipe which ties into the 18' storm drain pipe that drains offiite. Likelihood of flooding due to Sec Response to Comment 1 in the ENGEO April Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality in upstream dam failures. I 9th Supplemental Responses. The project site, the Draft EfR and ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, neighboring properties, and the majority of the Town Los Gatos, California, Geotechnical Exploratior.. of Los Gatos ateatl IQCated in an inundation zone in Report dated July 17, 2015. Rev. August 13. the event of' dam-overflow or failure. 2015; ENGEO April 19\b Supplemental Responses 5 BN3iS723:!M Comments I Rts(>09se to Comment Project Document in whirb Comment Addressed (fn addition to this matrix) Geology and Soils . Soil subsidence caused by Sec Response to Comment 2 in the ENGEO April Section 3.5, Geology and Soils in the Draft EIR temporary dewatering during l ~'" Supplemental Responses. The risk of settlement and ENGEO. lnc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, construction (subsidence} due to temporary dewatering is low for California. Geotechnical Explo ra tion Report the reasons stated in ENGEO's Response to dated July 17, 20l5. Rev. August 13. 2015; Comment 2 and as further stated by Uri Eliahu at the ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. December 13. 2017 Planning Commission meeting. 2 story underground garage in an Sec Response to Comment 8 i!t the ENGEO April Section 3.5, Geology and Soils in the Draft EJR Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone 1 gd! Supplemental Responses. The project site is not and ENGEO, Inc ., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos. located within a State of California Fault Rupture California, Geotechnical Exploration Report Hazard Zone for the reasons stated in ENGEO's dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015. Response to Comment 8. ENGEO April 19111 Supplemental Responses. See the Applicant Response Letter dated September 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign . 2 story garage identified as an Sec Response to Comment 9 in the ENGEO Apri. Section 3.5, Geology and Soils in the Draft EIR Earthquake Induced I 9'h Supplemental Responses. The effects of and ENGEO, Inc ., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos , Liquefaction Huard Zone and liquefaction-induced settlement should be mitigated California. Geotechnical Exploration Report combined effect of seismic by designing the foundation in actordance with dated July 17. 2015, Rev. August 13. 2015. activity, liquefaction potential ENGEO's geotechnical recommendations set forth in ENGEO April 19"' Supplemental Responses. make site unsuitable for its Geotechnical Exploration report. Also see letter Also see the Applicant Respon se letter dated underground garage (and from LARGO Concrete, Inc. in Exhibit 3. November 7, 2017 and our supplemental underwater). responses provided on January 2, 20 18. 6 BN 1t57:?3:: M ~ Project Document in which Comment Comments I Response to Ccmunent Addtessed (in addition to this matrix) In 1he event of an earthquake, ' See Response to Comments 1 I and lE and Sectioo . 3.5, Geology and Soils in the Draft EJR soils under garage are Jil~e1y to Responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 4, 5, and ENGEO, Iuc., 4-01 Alberto Way, Los Gatos , result in differential foundation a"'ld 9 in the ENGEO April 191b Supplemental California, Geoteclmical Exploration Report settlement with cracking that Responses. The Oeotechr1ical Report recommends dated July 17, '.!015, Rev. August 13, 2015; would allow influx of criteria for lhedesign oftt1e structural mat foundation ENGEO April lifh Supplemental Responses. groundwater ranging fi'om SO to ensure that it is rigid enough to span localized gallons per minute to 500 irregularities without suffering from structural gallons per minute. Settlement of damage. l inch or more. Settlement near The project site has been designed in accordance with cofferdam. Reduced capacity of other drainage facilities. Town requirements. inclllding to the overland release generated by a 100-:year tlood . which will prevent water from entering the building and the underground parking garage. In addition, the Project will drain storm water atongthe western property line through an 18" storm drain pipe, which accommodates a 10- year rain event. Please see the attached civil drawings prepared by Kier+ Wright PursuanttoPublicResources Code section 2693(c), the EIR indicates that the: Project design has incorporated ihc ENGEO Geotechnical Report geotechnical recommendations in order to avoid and mitigate potential seismk hazards including measures that are consiSb:ntwith e5tablished pract ice and that will reduce seismic risk to acceptable. levels. Long-term dewatering required See Response to Geissler Comments2 and l5 in the DEIR Section 3.5, Geology and Soils ant to discharge groundwater ENGEO April l </-Supplemental Responses. See E;-.JGEO, Inc ., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, seepage into garage and cracked Applicant Response Lett1!r dated January 2, 2018 California. Geotedmical Expl oration Rei:oo slabs at houses in Los Gatos regarding further comments regarding the garage. dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 20 15. Commons. Bella Vista Village. Et\GEO April l~ Supplemental Responses. Pueblo de Los Oatos and Las Casitas in vicinity of the garage. 7 BN 31Sn3:?1 vi Comments 'i Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Likelihood of flooding due to a Pursuant to Town requirements. the site has been Kier+ Wright civil plans on file with the Town of 125-year stonn. Certain death d<!Signed to handlt~ the overland release generated by Los Gatos for everyone in the garage. a lOO-year flood, which will prevent water from Chance of flooding during a entering the building and the underground parking 100-yeal" period is 55%. Public garage. As sho\\11 in Exhibit 2, a ridge at the top of safety at risk. the ramp that descends into the parking garage will prevent any site water, including severe storm water and 100-year flood waters, from entering the underground parking garage as the ridge directs the water toward Alberto Way and away from the garage entrance. Likelihood of flooding of garage Per the Town's Requirements, the storm drain ENGEO, Inc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos, due to stonn water nmoff during infrastructure on t~1e site has been design ed to California, Geotechnical Exploration Report heavy rains due to inadequate accommodate a 10-year storm and will release to Los dated July 17, 2015, Rev. August 13, 2015; property drainage. Increase Gatos Cr~ek without affecting the neighboring ENGEO April l 9'h Supplemental Responses; see percentage of pervious landscape property. Per the Town 's requirements. the site also Applicant Respon se Letter dated January 2. 2018. surface and conduct hydrology has been designed to the overland release a 100-year study of effect on neighboring flood into the Town's right of way to prevent any site properties. EIR fails to address water from entering the neighboring property, and the possible damage to neighboring 100-year flood waters will overland toward Alberto properties. Way. See also, Responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 1-6 an:I Response to Comment 16 in the ENGEO April 19th Supplemental Responses. The proposed office buildin g will be supported Oil a structural mat foundation designed in accordance with the Geotechr.ic al Report. which is rigid enough to span localized irregu larities without suffer ing from structural damage . The Geotechnical Report recommends that waterproofing be conducted by a waterproofing consultant. The construction of the parking garage will not result in any new significant geologic/geotechr1ical. hydrology or health and safety impacts. 8 BN 31 S7:?3:? M Comments I Response to Comment Project .Document in which Comment I Addressed (in addftton to this matrix) Construction of22·foot-deep s~e Response to Ocissler Engineering Comment 4 in ENGEO. lnc .. 401 Alberto Way, Los Gat'Js, underground garage may cause th: ENGEO April 191" Supplemental Responses. California, Geotechnical Exploration Report diversion of subsurface seepage dated July l 7, 2015, Rev. August 13. 2015; patterns which would cause a ENGEO April 191" Supplemental Responses. rise in groundwater levels in Also see Applicant Response Letter dated neighboring property and I November 7, 2017 regarding changes reflect in increased seepage flow rates Third Redesign. leading to piping failures. Proposed dewatering and l See Responses to Geissler Engineering Comments 4-ENGEO, lnc., 401 Alberto Way, Los Gatos. waterproofing mitigation 6 and Response to Comment 16 in the ENGEO April California, Geotechnical Exploration Repon measures arc Insufficient to 19•h Supplemental Responses. The risk of cracking dated July 17, 2015. Rev. August 13. 2015: protect adjacent properties. within the foundation mat due to earthquakes or ENGEO April l91h Supplemental Responses expansive soils and the risk of associated groundwater intrusion are low; therefore, the Project does not require lo ig-term de.watering from a gcotechnical stmd:ioint. 11.1e proper type of waterproofing will be determined and specified by a watetproofing consultant per the Geoteclmical ; Report. Require that all parking remain As with other parking structures constructed in Los See January 2. 2018 Applicant Response Letter above grade and be designed as Gatos. any risks associated with the underground regarding the Netflix subsurface parking garage pervious paving to mitigate parking garage will be addressed by providing proper in Los Gatos. risks. architectUral. Sb'tri:tural and civil design that meets all codes and Town requirements. There is no construction plan Conditions 106through 111 require thatthe Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and no plan can avoid blocking developer submit t: construction management plan and Planning Commission testimony. residents and emergency prior to issuance or any permits to commence work . vehicles for extended periods of All construction 1rnffic routes and controls are subject time(PLG, 27) to Town review. Negative impacts not identified Draft ElReva~d potential impactS to public DEIR. Section 3.10. Public Services. (PLO, 3S) services and determined the impacts would be less than significant. 9 BN31ST.!nM ! Comments I Ruponse to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed On addition to this matrix) Impact to area schools is not 4 Pige 3-140 in Sectfon 3.10 of the Draft EIR explains Draft EIR. insiwiificant (PLG, 35) ''by the impacts to area schools would be less-than- significant. Impact to fire and emergency Page 3-t 79 in Section 3.11 of the Draft ElR explains Applicant Response Letter; Response #2 to medical services not why the impacts to fire and emergency services Matthew Hudes insignificant (PLO. 36) would not be significant. Traffic has increased in past 6 See response to Comment 3 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Respon ses set forth in months; need new traffic Supplemental Resp:>nses. The minimal tluc tuation in Exhibit 4 . analysis. traffic counts reported in the Hexagon Supplemental Responses did not tLlter any of the conclusion s. Revised project fails to address Sec response to Comment 4 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in VT A funding Hwy 9 & 17 Supplemental Responses. The TIA assumes worst Exhibit4. Interchange before Measure B case conditions without interchange improvements. (PLG. 8) ' Revised project fails to address See response to Comments 5 and 6 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses se t forth in traffi~ on Hwy 9 and Alberto Supplemental Responses. The observed traffic Exhibit 4. Way which will become conditicns support the assumptions used for the TIA congested (PLG, 16). Per in accordance with Town policy and VTA TIA Caltrans. project \\ill add trips guidelines. The Tl A acknowledges that the project greater than I% capacity; would add trips equal to 1.18% ofcapacity to SB SR mitigation is required. EIR is 17 between Lark Avenue and Los Gatos-Saratoga inadequate. Road. The Project traffic improvements would improve operations compared to existing conditions. Project will increase traffic on See response to Comment 5 in Hexagon Hexago n Supplemental Responses set forth in Hwy 9. NB traffic on Hwy I 7 Supplemental Responses. Exhibit4 exiting East Los Gatos will add to traffic delays. The curve in front of the project See response to Comment 8 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in is a sight problem for vehicles. Supplemental Ress:onses. Hexagon recom1Uends Exhibit4 (PLG. 421 eliminating on-street parking along pr~ject ftontage. 10 BN 31S713:!1"1 Comments I Response to Comment Project Document in wldcb Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Traffic congestion wiU impact Section 3.1 I Transportation and Traffic address Final EIR, Response to Comment Letter 7; Alberto Way and LG in a %-mile traffic and circulation irnpacts oftbe proposed Hexagon Re.spo11se Letter dated April 5, 2017. radius (PLG. 16): need project. Analysis indicates impacts will be less than Traffic impacts would be further reduced with reasonable ingress/egress on significant. ·The Traffic Report considered the vehicle development of the 74,260 sf buildin g under the Alberto Way CBVV. 3t trips of surrounding uses in its analysis . In the Third Redesign as explained in the Applicant's "Overall Tl'llffic Conditions" section of tbe Hexagon Response Letter dated November 7, 2017. Response Letter indicates that office traffi c to the project would mainly flow in the comttc r-commute direction on eastbound Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, and would tum left into Alberto Way, avoiding adding tr .. to the eastbound queue on Los Gatos- Saratoga Rd at Los Gat:is Blvd. Revised PD fails to straighten See Applicant Response #2 to Matthew Hude s in the Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, Alberto for safety & on-street Applicant Response Letter dated March. 1 7, 2017. 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated !viarch 17. parking (PLG. 15). The revised PD Will implement the Town 's Complete 2017 (Response #2 to Matthew Hudes an:l Street Program. The developer has proposed a land Response #1 . v. to Charles Erekson): Applicant dedication along the Alberto Way frontage to Response Letters dated November 7, 2017 and facilitate the widening nnd straightening of Alberto January:!. 2018 regarding Third Rede sign. Way by over S feet. n1e revised design moves a majority of the existing curh and gutter into the ' proposed land dedicati<ins as well as the excess right of way in «der to have a wider and straighter roadway. Tbcstreetwideningwill allow for a bike lane and a longcnight tum lane onto Los Gatos- Saratoga Road. Fire department facilities will be See response to Comm :nt 11 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in affected by traffic (PLG, 35-37\. Supplemental Responses. One or two fire hydrants Exhibit 4 would be relocated from back of curb. Emergency response times would not be impacted by the project. False Ttaffic Report data (PLG, See Trip Generation di:;cussion in Hexagon Response. Hexagon Response Letter dated April 5, 2017. 38, 40). Letter dated April 5, 2(117. 11 BN 31Si.!l2M Comments I Response to Comment Project Document in ll'hich Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrixl i Did not consider traffic from St:e Response to Comment 13 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in 475-485 Alberto Way project Supplemental Responses. The 475~485 Alberto Way Exhibit 4. project had not submitted a planning application at the time the 40 J Alberto Way Project TIA was prepared. Trip Generation Sensitivity See Trip Generation discussion in Hexagon Response Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Study (PLO . 39) Lener dated April 5, 2017. See Response to Exhibit 4. Comment 14 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. The trip g.~neration is based on net building size, not on employment. The proposed building size has decreased compared to the original project as reflected in the Third Redesigu. Traffic fee calculation uses 700 See Respc1nse to Comment 14 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in additional trips ($615,800 /$879/ Supplemental Responses. The final traffic impact Exhibit4. additional trip) which under fees will be calculated per the To\\n·s requirements states the fee that would be paid and Project conditions of approval. by tenants employing 735 people. CPLG. 39) The project could potentially See Response co Comment 15 in Hexagon Final EIR; Comments 1-3 ofSanra Clara VTA increase hazards due to design Supplemental Responses. The Project voluntarily Comment Letter #9; Hexagon Response Letter features for bikes, pedestrians, proposed to rebuild the sidewalk fronting the Project dated April 5, 2017; Applicant Response Letter and transit (PLO, 40) site along westbound Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd to dated November 7. 2017. create a detached sidewalk for additional separation between the vehicles and pedestrians per the Town's Contplete Streets Program . The Project a lso widen s westboun:J Los Gatos-Saratoga Road to accommodate a bike lane. Currently, Alberto Way does not have bike lanes. but the Pr~iect proposes to install bike lanes and a biko:! box at the intersection of Alberto and Los Gatos-Saratoga to allow bicyclists to tum left safely. MM Tl and T2 cannot be See Response to Comment 16 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in implemented as proposed. Supplemental Responses . The restriping was Exhibit4. Widen Alberto to 12-foot lane designed based 011 input from the Town. width. (PLG, 41) 12 SN 31.S7:!3~lvl Comments I Response to Comment Project Document ia which Comment Addressed ~n addltion to this matrix) ' ' MM T3 creates a new and See Response to Comment 17 in Hexagon Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 20 l 7 unacceptable impact m 420 & S•lpplemental Responses. {Response 2 to 1'fatthew Hudes); Hex.ago~ 435 Alberto Wr; and fails to S1~ Response 2. to Matthew Hudes and Response l to Supplemental &'.:sponses set forth .in Exhibit 4 widen Alberto Way in fi'mt of Applicant Response Letters dated November 7. project site. (PLG, 41 l Charles Erekson in the Applicant Response Letter 2017 and January 2, 201& .. dated March 17, 2017. There\-ised project widens and straight~s Alberto Way by over 5 feet through a proposed land dedication that will allow for greater visibility on. Alberto Way, and bike lanes and a 1 longer right tum lane. The Revised Project driveway Sce·Rcspon>e to Comment l& in Hexagon Applicant Response Letter; Response #1. iv. to .and parking areas are Supplemental Responses. The revi-;ed site plan is Charles Erekson; Hexagon Supplemental insufficient (PLG. 42) adequate for bus and truck access and circulation. Responses set forth i11 Exhibit 4. Buses and trucks would not need to enter the garage. Project parlcing should not See Response to Comment 19 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in owrflow to street parking on Supplemental &'.:sponses. Exhibit4. Alberto Way. (BW, S) Revised Project appears to have I Stt Response to Comment I 8 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in no tum1ll'ound large enough for Suppf emcnfal Responses . See response above. Exbibit4. buses (PLG. 42). Revised PD Garage is bloCked See Response to Comment 20 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in while trash and recycling is SupplemcntaJ Responses. Garbage trucks would not Exhibit 4. picked up. backing up traffic on block acces; to the garage. Alberto&. Hwy-9 or in the PDs garage while they are present <.PLG.42) More jobs wiJl create demand The project involves the redevelopment of a Draft EIR for more housing and secondary commercially zoned property and not a residential development. EIR must address project. The project is subject to the commercial all impaces including schools developer impact fees imposed by Los Gatos Union and project should contri!Jute School District ofS.54/square foot. SSOK to 70K per tenant employee to mitigate school impacts. 13 BN ltsr-J~lvl ' Comments j Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment I Addressed (in addition to this matrix) No construction plan can prevent S:ction 3.11 Transportation and Traffic. and Section Final ElR. Response to Comment Letter #5; complete shutdown of Alberto ..i Cumulative Impacts address traffic and circulation Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Way for extended periods (PLO, impacts of the proposed pr~ject (including access to Exhibit4. 42) Alberto Way during construction activities). Analysis in Draft EIR indicates impacts are less than significant. See Rt!sponse to Comment 15 in Hexagon Supplemental Responses. During construction, work crews See Response to Comment 22 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in ofS0-100 will be present on the Supplemental Responses. Exhibit 4. See Applicant Response Letters dated site at all times, each arriving in September 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign and a separate vehicle: it is not November 7, :?.017 for the Third Redesign and the possible for them to all park on Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 the Project property (PLG, 42) prepared by Buchalter. As a Mixed-Use development, Section 2 Project Description describes the proposed Final El R. Response #7 to Lener #2. Hexagon the PD would, generate high use of the site as commercial use and not residential Supplemental Responses set forth in Exhibit 4. levels of continuous traffic that use. See Response to Comment 23 in Hexagon are not disclosed in the DEIR or Supplemental Responses FEIR (PLO, 43) , FEIR MISSING Mitigation T -4: See Response to Comment 2..J. in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Widen Hwy-9 by one Jane along Supplemental Responses. Highway 9 has 2 lanes Exhibit 4. the entire length of the Proposed along the project frontage. The project does not Development on Hwy•9 to allow cause the need for further widening of the highway. safe right turns from Alberto Way {PLG, 43) FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-5: See Response to Comments 24 and 25 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Responses set forth in Widen Hwy-9 by one lane each Supplemental Responses. Highway 9 has 2 lanes Exhibit 4. direction betv.'een the Hwy-17 along the project frontage. The project does not Overpass and the 2 lane sections cause the need for further widening of the highway. on both sides to enable the EB left tum pocket into Alberto to be extended enough to prevent AM gridlock rPLG, 44) 14 9N3157:?3~M Comments I Response to Comment Project Document ha which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) FEIR MISSING Mitigation T-6: S1::e Response to Comments 24 and 25 in Hexagon Hexagon Supplemental Req>onsts set forth in Reduce PD Footprint by enough Supplemental Responses. Highway 9 bas 2 lanes &hibit4. to enable the widening ofHwy•9 along the project ftontage . The pnject does not by one Jane each direction cause the~ for further-widening Of the highway. between the Hwy· 17 Overpass and the 2 Jane sections on both sides (PLG, 45) No trip generating project should See Response to Comment 27.in ~ Hexagon Supplemental Responsts set forth in be approwd before Los Gatos Supplementat Responses. The Project -would not E.xhibft4. Blvd. is widened.(PLG. 261 cause Significant iinpacts along Las. Gatos Bl\'d. Project sewer crosses The existing buildings drain the site sewage to a 6' Exhibit 2 to the matrix previously submitted on neighboring properties. VCP which traversH through the neighboring Sep.ember 27. 2017 for the Second Redesign. property. The proposed building for 1he Project has capped the traversing 6' VCP onaite. and instead is draining the sewaae of the proposed lluilding directly into Alberto Way's 6' VCP sewer main, without traversing through a neighboring property. Please see Exhibit2. 15 BN llS723Zlvl Comments I Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (iii addition to this matrix) ' Alternatives ' Existing square footage Please refer tc• Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, alternative is consistent with August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, project objectives. (PLG 46) dated March 17, 2017 <Summary of Architectural 2017 I Summary of Architectural Changes and Changes and responses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O"Donnell O'Donnell and Matthew Hudes). and Matthew Hudes). I-story garage has negative The undergroJnd parking garage is two floors below N IA impacts (PLG 46). grade, not one. The revised design reduces the footprint of the underground parking garage, which decreases the required excavation and also allows for on~site stagin.~ of all construction vehicles, thus eliminating ccmgestion on the street during construction. Furthermore, locating most parking below grade !.ignificantly reduces the visual impact of the surfilce parking lot and allows for additional surface landsi;aping and amenity areas. Any additional risks associated with the underground parking garage will be l 00%1 mitigated thorough proper architectural, structural and civil design that meets all COO!S and Town requirements. Growth-lndutlng Impacts CEQA Section 21100(b)(5) Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR contains a discussion of DraftElR. specifies that growth inducing growth inducing impacts. As explained in the Draft impacts must be addressed in EIR. the proposed project would not be population- EIR and they were not. (PLG, ind ucing and would be consistent with the General 36-37) Plan and zoning designations for the site; therefore the Project W•)uld not have growth inducing eftects. No Signlficsnt Impacts EIR fails to describe why the The EIR desc :ribes the reasons that all of the impacts NIA possible significant effects were that were evaluated in this EIR were determined not determined not to be significant. to be significmt. (PLG, 37) 16 BN 3157:!3:!1 vl Co111111ents 1 Project Description Revised PD Falls to Address Reviewability (PLG. 7) Revised PD Design Features in conOict with General P1an Policies (PLG, 46-49) Questions validity of Cannon report. References rednctim of only700sf Ensure .that new development reinforces and supports the special qualities of the Town of Los Gatos (PLG. 47) BN 315723.~lvl Response to Comment l'roject Document in which Comment Addressed (in additiea to this matrix) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- The project ls reviewable in acwrdancc with the Town of Los Oatos l'vtunicipal Code and application review procedures j•Jst like any other development project is reviewable. Refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 20 l 6 and Applicarzt Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michttl Kane and Matthew Hudes}. Additional recommendations were made by the Town's consulting ardtitec.1, Cannon Design Group. and have been incorporated into the Third Redesign l submission as discussed above. I j The 700 sfreduc.tlon noted in the Cannon Design Group document is incorrect. The actual reduction in area between the C•riginal design t91,965 s1) and the current proposed <!esign ( 83,000 sf) is 8,965 sf Cannon Desip Group is the Town·s peer review consultant retained by the Town to provide an independent 1SSCS;1ment of the Project. Please refer to-Atn!icant Response Letter dated August 18. 2016 aid Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 tSummary of Architectural Changes and respvnses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Mkhael Kane and ~Iatthew Hudes}. Recommen~oru; :rom Cannon Design Group have been incorporated into the redesign . 17 NIA Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural. Changes and re.sponses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes}; See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27. 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 2017 for the TI1ird Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared by Buchalter. See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, 20 J 7 for the Second Redesign and N01o·ember 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicac.t Response Letter dated January 2. 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated !\larch 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Dcnnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes}: See Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7. 2017 for the Third .Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2. 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Comments I Response to Comment Projut Document in which Comment I Add~ (In "ddfffon tn thi" msatrh') Northern portion ofbuildings The revised PD has rel ocated the building an Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, should be reduced to 1 story. additiona . 10 feet away from the north property line. 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 1?, fot a total of 25 feet of setback, including the Town-2017 (Summaiy of Architectural 01anges and mandated l 5-foot setback. resp onses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, Buildings block views of For responses on blocking views, please refer to Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See mountains. Applicant Response Letters dated September 27. Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, (Summar~· of Archite<.'tural Changes and responses to 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant comments by Thomas O'Do1mell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Response Letter dated January 2. 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Revised PD Features in conflict Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August I 8, with LG Commercial Design August n, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, Guidelines {PLG. 47) dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 (Swnmary of Architl!Ctural a1anges and Changes and responses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See Additional recommendations made by the Town's Applicant Response Letters dated September 27. consulting architect, Cannon Design Group. have 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, been incc:•rporated into the most recent design 2017 for the l11ird Redesign and the Applicant submission as discussed above for the Third Response Letter dated January :?., 2018 pr epared Redesign. by Buchalter. Provide more project review and The project is reviewable in accordance with the NIA approval predictability (PLG, Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code and application 47) review procedures just as any development project is reviewabk in such a manner. Numerous public meetings. hearings and community workshops have bter conducted by the Town and the applicant as summari:~ed in the April 6, :!O 17 Plann ing Commission staff report. Plan Deficiency (PLG, 47) Please refe r to Applicant Response Lener dared NIA August 18. :!016 and Applicant Response Letter dated Much 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and respon ses to comments by Thomas O 'DonntlL Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Also. the Staff analysis contained in the various staff reports pre pared for the Project demonstrates that the Project complies with Town plans and policies. 18 BN315P-3~M Comments I Response to Comment Project Document la which Comment I ! l\fldnwll On, ~uldifimt m thi~ matrit) Maintain a building scale that is Pl~ refer tO Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, consistent with the Town's small August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, scale image {PLG. 48) dated Mardi 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 (Summary of Architettural Changes and Changes and responses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D. O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See There is no prevalent commercial architecture style in Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, the immediate surrounding area, so the revised :W l 7 for the Second Redesign and Noven;.ber 7. project has.been redesigned to complement the 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant existing commercial centers. using mission-style Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared architecture. Tlte Tow11's Architectural Consultant by Buchalter. has approved tile proposed architectural style as in accordance with the To\\11's Commercial Design Guidelines. Reinforce the special qualities of Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August :8, the Town's visual character August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, (PLG.48} dated Mardi 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and Changes and responses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. O'Donnell. D. Michael Kane and \olatthew Ht;des). Michael Kane and )vfatthev.1 Hudes). See Additional recommendations made by the Town's Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, consulting architect, Cannon Design Group, have 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, been incorporated into the most recent design 2017 for the 1l1ird Redesign and the Applicant submission as discussed above. The design Response Letter dated January::!. 2018 prepared incorporates vnious design elements ftom the Hotel by Buchalter. Los Gatos and Palo Alto Medical Foundation office building located on Los Gatos Blvd. Protect property owner Plea~e refer to· Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August ·1 s, investments by discouraging A..igust 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, inappropriate adjacent dated March 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and development (PLG, 48) Changes and ttsponses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D. O'Donnell, O. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes}. Michael Kaoe and Matthew Hudes). See Additional recommendations made by the Town's Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, consulting.rctiitect. Cannon Design Group, have 2017 for the Secon.d Redesign and November 7. been incorporated into the most recent design 2017 for the Titird Redesign and the Applicant submission for the Third Redesign as discussed Response Letter dated January ::!, 2018 prepared above . by Buchalter. 19 BN 31572321vl Comments I Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment AddrHstd (in !H!difion tn this m~trlx) To encourage signs which are in Once a tenant and/or tenants have been identified, the NI A scale and harmony with the Owner will submit a Master Signage Program (MSP) architecture and the character of that is consistent and complies with Tovm the Town (PLG. 48) requirements for exterior building and site signage. Maintenance of the existing Refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, small town feel (PLG, 48) 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Smnmary of Architectural Changes and 2017 (Summary of Ar chitectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D. responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes), which indicates Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes ). See that recommendations fiom Cannon Design Group, Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, have been incorporated into the most recent design 2017 for 1he Second Redesign and November 7, submission as discussed above. The Town 's 2017 for the Third Rede sign and the Applicant Architectural Consultant has appr oved the proposed Respons e Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared style as in accordance \\ith the Town ·s Commercial by Buchalter. Design Guidelines. Careful attention to architectural The architectural details and landscape design have Applicant Response Letters dated August 18, and landscape details similar to been designed in strict compliance vrith the T 0\\11 's 2016 and March 17, 2017. the Town's residential structures zoning requirements for the site . The revise.d desi!,,rn (PLG. 48) offers a generous landscape amenity a rea in front of the building, facing onto Alberto Way . Additional recommend~.tions made by the Town's consulting architect. Ca·1non Design Group, have been incorporated into th e most recent design submission which further addr ess the reques t for similar architectural and landscape det ail s by pro·liding additional visual variety and br eaking up the scale on the front fa i;ad e, includin g varying the heights of the mansard roofS, addin g additional recesses and projection~ at the front fus:ade , and providing more ofa wall plane of1Set where the two- story front wall transiticms to a one-story wall. 20 BN 31S7:?32lvl Comments 1 Response to Comment i--~~~~~~~~~~-- . Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 mid Applicant Response Letter dated March 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and re.sponses to comme1\ts h}' Thomas Small scale buildings with a strong )'edestrian orientation (PLO. 48) The sensitive interface of commercial development with adjacent residential neighborhoods (PLG. 48) Streng encouragement of a unique Los Gatos scale and character (PLG. 48) BN31S7Z32M O'Donnell,"':>. Michael Kane and Matthe'\.Y Hudes). The additional recommendations made by the Town· s consulting architect, Cannon Design Group, have been incorporated into the most recent design submission for the Tilird Redesign as dcscrihed above and nplained at the December 13, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18. 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated Mardi 17, 2017 (Summruy of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). The revised Project combines the two former buildings, tnd repositions it to the-rear setback. The new building is over 60 feet ftnther away from Alberto Way than the former 40 t building. In addition, tfu: tower elements and balcony on the north side of the building have been eliminated. which allow for better views and more privacy to surtoundlng residential neighborhoods. Refer to Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2t)! 1 {Summary of Architectural Changes and responses t<1 comments by Thomas ff Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes}. Additional recommendations made by the Town's consulting architect, C:mnon Design Group, have been incorporated into the most recent design submission . The Project bas been designed so that it preserves and promotes er.isting commercial centers consistent with the maintemnce and design of a small-town Class A office center. 21 b'oject Document in wlllcb Comment Addressed (in additioll totbb matrix) Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17. 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See Applicant Response Letters dated Septerr.ber 27. 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2. 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, 20L6; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, 2017 (Summacy of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O 'Donnell, D. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). Sec Applicant Response Letters dated Septerr.:ber 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Applicant Response Letter dated August J 8, 2016:.Applicant Response Letter dated March 17. 2017 (Sunmtary of Architectural Changes and responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell . D. Michael Kane and .Matthew Hudes). See Applicant Response Letters dated Septerr..ber 27 , 2017 for the Second Redesiga and November 7, 20 l 7 fur the Th ird Redesign and the Appiicant Response Letter dated January. 2, 2018 prepared by Buchalter. Comments I Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed lin addition to this matrix) Design to maintain and reinforce Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August I 8, the unique scale and character of August 18, 2016 and Applicant Response Letter 2016; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, Los Gatos (PLG. 48) dated March 1·1, 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 {Swmnary of Architectural Changes and Changes and responses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell. O'Donnell, Michael Kane and !\.fatthew Hudes). Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). See Additional recommendations made by the Town·s Applicant Response Letters dated September 27, consulting architect, Cannon Design Group, have 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, been incorporated into the most recent design 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant submission to maintain and reinforce the scale and Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared character ofLc•s Gatos by providing visual variety by Buchalter. reducing the mass of the central link of the setback portion ofthe liuilding and adding additional trellis features at the windows on the front fairade. Break overall building masses Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, into segments similar to those of August 18, 20·_6 and Applicant Response Letter 2016: Applicant Response Letter dated March 17. nearby structures and parcels dated March t 7. 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 !Summary of Architectural Changes and CPLG, 48) Changes and r•!sponses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, O'Donnell. Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes}. See Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes); Response 1 the discussion above regarding the applicant's efforts in Arc-Tee Response Letter dated March 16. to break up the massing and scale in the revised 2017. See Applicant Response Letters dated project reflected in the Third Redesign as forther September 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign and discussedatthe December 13, 2017 Planning November 7. 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Commission meeting. Applicant Response Letter dated January 2. 2018 prepared by Buchalter. A void design which consists Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August t 8, largely of boxes with applied August 18. 2016 and Applicant Response Letter 2016: Applicant Response Letter dated March 17. design elements (PLG, 48) d;ite.j March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and Changes and responses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, O'Donnell, M chael Kane and Matthew Hudes). The Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes'); Response l revised design incorporates visual variety and break in Arc-Tee Res ponse Letter dated March 16, up in scale on the front fa9ade. including increasing '.!O 17. See Applicant Response Letters dated tht' mansard rc'°fheight on the left side of the September 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign and building to create differential in the massing, whil e November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the preventing ad\'erse impacts to the views of the trees Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 and bills in tht· distance. prepared by Buchalter. ")") BN 31S723:?h'J Comments Response to Comment Project Document in wbicb Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix,) Break facade segments into Please refer to Applicant Response Letter dated Applicant Response Letter dated August 18, modules (PLG. 49} August 18, 201f· and Applicant Response Letter 20 l 6; Applicant Response Letter dated March 17, dated March 17, 2017 (Summary of Architectural 2017 (Summary of Architectural Changes and Changes amhesponses to comments by Thomas responses to comments by Thomas O'Donnell, O'Donnell, Michael Kane and Matthew Hudes). The Micbael Kane and Matthew Hudes); Response 1 design includes additional visual variety and break up in Arc-Tee Response Letter dated March 16, in scale on the front fa~ade, including varying the 2017. See Applicant Response Letters dated heights of the mansard rooiS. adding additional Septembe.r 27, 2017 for the Second Redesign and recesses and prcjections at the front fuyade, and November 7. 2017 for the Third Redesign and the providing more of a wal I plane offiet where the two-Applicant Response Letter dated January 2, '.?.O l 8 story front wall transitions to a one-story wall. prepared by Buchalter. Provide a unified design around The project's design is consistent around all four Response 1 in Arc-Tee Response Letter dated all sides of buildings (PLG. 49) sides of the buiUing. Additional design March 16. 20l7 enhancements and detailing are provided at the front fa~de of the building facing Alberto Way. Where continuity of design is The architec:turl.l details and landscape design are in NIA difficult to achieve. provide strict compliance with the Town's zooing substantial landscaping (PLO, requirements for the site. The revised design offers a 49) generous landscape amenity area in front of the building. facing onto Alberto Way. Integrate the screening for all All trash and service areas on the site will be properly See e.g., Conditions 132-133 of Project trash and Service areas into the screened ftom ~iew as is required by Town of Los Cond.itions of Approval.. (Note: condition design of the buildings (PLG, Gatos zoning requirements. numbers may change due to updated Planning 49) Commission resolutions). Operable windows (PLG, 49) i Cpe~able v.indows are not practical due to code and See e.g., Condition 39 of the Project Conditions Provide visual buffering of on-Title 24requirements '"11ich mandate an energy of Approval. (Note: condition numbers may efficient HV AC system; the efficiency of which is change due to updated Planning Commission site utility elements (PLG., 49) compromised b:f the use of operable "'indows. resolutions). Locate transformer~ valves and All service areas and on-site utility equipment See e.g .. Conditions 13:2-133 ofPr~ject similar. elements where they WiU (transformers, etc.) on the site will be properly Conditions of Approval. <!Vote: condition be least visible <PLG, 49} screened from ..,iew per Tm\'11 ofLos Gatos zoning numbers may change due to updated Planning requirements. Commission resolutions). 23 BN 31.57"..31lvl Comments Response to Comment Project Document in which Comment Addressed (in addition to this matrix) Subordinate parking to the Parking is ·•subordinated'' to the buildings with the NIA. Also see revised project submittal dat::d buildings. A void parking lots in provisiot1 of an underground parking garage. No Maret 2017. locations that interrupt retail surface i:arking lots are proposed that would interrupt and/or struchttal continuity near retail or structural continuity near the frontage . front property lines. (PLG, 49) Projects with multiple tenants Once a tenant and/or tenants have been identified, the NIA will be required to prepare a Owner will submit a Ma ster Signage Program (MSPl Master Signage Program (PLG, that is crnsistent and complies with T O\l\'11 49} requirements for exterior building and site sigi1age. Additional disclosures This conuuent does not raise a CEQA issue: no NIA describing work to be :further response is required. performed. (BVV 6) The Project will depress Alberto This comment does not raise an environmental issue; Final EIR. Respon se to Comment Letter #2. Way Property Values both no further resp onse is required. Respcnse#6 during and after construction (PLG. 42) ff water is used to control DEIR St-ction 3.2 evaluates construction-related air DEIR particulates during construction, quality h1pacts. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 and trucks exiting the site wilt leave Conditkns 120 and 131 address measures to with mud on their tires, which minimize potential for deposition of dust and mud at will be deposited in Alberto Way off-site locations. (,\'ot e: condition numbers may and Hwy-9 (PLG, 43} change due to upd ated resolutions). t During construction. the road Couditk•n s I 06 through I l l require that the DEIR beds of Alberto Way and Hwy-9 developc:r submit a construction management plan wm be destroyed or seriously prior to JSsuance of any permits to commence work. damaged by the fully loaded (.Vote : condition numbers may change due to concrete trucks (PLG, 43). updated resolutions). MM T-2 calls for a construction Per condition 105, the developer shall he responsible NIA contract with Los Gatos but, for obtaining Caln·ans approval of a traffic control there is no mitigation for the plan for work within the Caltrans right-of-wa y. (Note: construction contract with conditio1 numbers may change due to updated Caltrans (PLG , 43'1. resolutic•ns). 24 BN31S723.2lvl Comments Response to Comment Project Docmnent ia wliicb Comment Addressed (in addition· to this matrix) 200 diesel truck trips per day for 1••0 constructien ~ould occur on weekends. The NIA. See Applicant Response Letters dated t to 2 years; some days more Project constructfon activities are designated for Seprember '27, 2017 for the Second Rdesifjn and with 6-7 trucks. at a time. 174 ~1ondaythrough Friday from 9-4 in order to mitigate November 7, 2017 for the Third Redesign and the. round trips per day. address peak traffic concerns. Applicant Response Letter dated January 2. 2018 truck traffic impacts due to prepared by Buchalter. beach traffic. Construction traffic impacts to pedestrians. CEQA document needs to be The modificatiom; described above are feasible and March 17, 2017 letter and Final EfR .. See revised and recirculated. represent minor revisions and clarifications to the Applicant Response Letters dated September '27, overall project th&t will not add significant new 2017 for the Second Redesign and November 7, information to the T 0\\.11 of Los Gatos 401-409 2017 for the Third Redesign and the Applicant Alberto Way. Draff and Final Environmental Impact Response Letter dated January 2, 2018 prepared Report {EJR). Recirculation of the EfR is not by Buchalter. required because·the proposed modifications will further lessen impacts that the Town previously found to be leu ihan-sig11ifica11t. Further the changes incorporated into the Project would not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the se-1erity of a prior environmental impact, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that we declined to adopt and that will clearly lessen any project impacts. No information provided in this submittal lndic:aWs that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on theEIR. Project negatively impacts senior This comment does not raise a CEQA issue: no Final El R. response to Comm ent Lettc-r #~ citizens who reside in the further response is required. Response #6 neighborhood (LGC, p. S). Fails to compensate damaged sellers due to lower property values. (PLO, p. 42) 25 BN.31S7.:!32M Legend: PD= Proposed Development PLG =Pueblo de Los Gatos Submitted to Los Gatos for405 Alberto Way(aka 401-409 Alberto Way) included in April 7, 2017 Staff Report BVV =Bella Vista Villages Submitted to Los Gatos for405 Alberto Way(aka 401-409 Alberto Way) included in April 7, 2017 Staff Report LGC = Los Gatos Commons Submitted to Los Gatos for 405 Alberto Way (aka 401-409 Alberto Way) included in April 7, 2017 Staff Report 26 BN31H:m1v1 Buchalter September 27. 2017 VIA E-MAIL Mayor Sayne and Councilmcmbers Los Gatos Town Council l l 0 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 9503 1 G3 Socond Strool Suite 1700 San Franclsoo. CA 94105 415.227.0900 Pllone 415.227.0770 FEP< Filo Numxr: l4342'-0002 ~ 15.227.3508 Direct aguarrll@buct1111ter.com Re: 401-409 Alberto Way-Architecture and Site Application S-.15-056, Conditional Lise Permit Application U-15~009, and Environmental Impact Report EIR-16-001. Property Owner: CWA Realty. Applicant/Appellant: LP Acquisitions, LLC. Appeal of a Planning Commission Denial of Request to Demolish Three Existing Office Buildings and Construct a New, 2-S tory Office Building with Below Grade and At-Crude Parking on Property Zoned CH. APN 529-23-0l 8. Dcnr Muyor Sayoc and Members of the Town Council .• Buchalter represents LP Acquisitions, the developer of the project located at 401-409 Albc110 Way in r ,os Gatos ("Alberto Way Project" or "Project"). First, on behalf of my client, we Lhank you for considering the Alberto Way Project and our request that you ovenum the Planning Commission 's denial of the Project approval s as n:forcncl.'<i above. Secondly, at your meeting of September 19, 2017, the Los Gatos Town Council closed the public hearing but invited the applicant and the public to submit written comments for the Council's consideration at its upcoming meeting of October 3, 2017 concerning the Project. Accordingly, the purpose of this letter is to address scvcrnl key ~omments that were submitted to you as desk items or that were made at the September 19 111 Council Meeting in an ctfo11 to address any remaining questions about the Project in a nticipation of your deliberations at next week's meeting. Hl'i 31 OC)tl566v I buchalter.com Los A n~Jeles Napa Valley Ornngc-County Sacramenlo San Franci sc o Scottsdale Buchalter Mayor Suyoc and Councilmcmbcrs September 27, 2017 Page 2 No new comments were submitted that undermine the adequacy of the EIR or the Project approvals. Importanlly, all orthe comments l>ubmittcd lust week opposing the Project arc the same comments that cornmcntcrs opposing the Project submitt~ to the Town in August 2016, and in March 2017, April 2017, and again, in May 2017. Many of these arc the same comments presented at the May 10, 201? Planning Commission meding. None o I' the comment letter:s· included in the September 14, 2017 Staff Report and none of the desk items submittt.:d on September 19 111 contain any new comments or any infom1ation indicating that the Projet'.l would result in new significant environmental impacts, and specifically any impacts related to hydrology, geology, traffic (sec Exhibit A), aesthetic and visual impacts. As we stated in our May 9. 2017 kiter to Jennifer Armer, when an agency prepares an env ironmental impact report (ElR), the issue is whether sub stantial evidence supports the ugency's conclusions, not wh ether others might disagree with those conclusions (sec e.g., North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water Oist. Bel. ofnirectors. 2 l 6 Cal.App.4 111 6l4, 624 (2013)). The extensive analysis Hnd infonnation contuincd in the EIR and the Town's administrat ive record dcmonstrutcs that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that all sig11i ficanl environmental impacts have been mitigated to a less than significant level, and the Town Council may ti11d that the Project complies w ith the Town's General Plan, zoning aml Commcrdal Des ign Guidclim.:s as further discussed below . T ha l finding hus nol changed in ligh t of the same comments that were submitted prior t.o lhc September l 91 h Council meeting. If the Council gi·ants the appenl, suhstantinl evidence supports the Council's Cl~rtification of the EIK and approval of the Revised P1·ojcct. One commenter suggested that while they urge the Counc il to up hold the Planning Commission 's denial , if the Council chooses to grant the appeal and ap prove the Project, lh1.:y asked the Council to rem and the matter back to the Commission. They ul so believe the Planning Commissi1>11 was not under an ohligatinn to adopt any findin gs or to Cl.~11i JY the EIR in light of the comments contained in the administrutiv~ record. We recognize the Planning C'or11mission and thl: Town Counci I have discretion in applying the Town's General Plan policies, zoning regulutions, and Commercial Design Guidcli11cs in read1ing a ucdsi on as to whether or not to approve the Architec ture and Site Application (S-15-056) (ASA) and the Conciitional l Jsc Penn it U-15-009 (C'UP) for the replacement of'the existing office buildings with a new office build ing. 8ut even discretionary actions reLtuirc findings and Lhc findings must be support1..:d by sub sla11lial evi<lence as explained in our May 19, 2017 appeal. As the Califomia Supreme Court explained in the seminal case, Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. C ounty of/,os Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506 (1974). this findings requirement particularly applies to dccisiuns, such as thos e at issue here, which arc in adjudicatory in nuturc. Findings arc ncede<l in order to enable the parties to determine I! N JI 0•10:'M1~ I Buchalter Mayor Sayoc and Councilmembers Scptcmhcr 27, 2017 Pagc3 whether and on what b asis they should seek review . rf findings arc not provided to "bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and the decision," then neither the upplicnnt/nppellant nor the public will be able to determine the basis of the agency's decision. That is the problem here. The Planning Commission was all over the map in terms or its expectations regarding a reduced project size when substantial evidence showed the Reduced Scak Alternative wus found infoasiblc. The record reflects that some of the commcntcrs requested that the Project be even smaller and closer to the square footage of the existing buildings, bul the ETR determined that this version of the "No Project" alternative would fail the basic project objectives. While commentcrs and the Commission expressed concern about rhc Revised Project being "too big,'' 80-90% of the Commi ssion's requested revisions were incorporated into the Revised Project as noted in the administrative record. For example, the revised design \.Vould actuuJly be lower in height than the tallest point of the existing buildings. Similarly, the proposed buildings would be set bnck from the street !hmtuge in a munncr to further protect views when compared to the existing buildings, freeway, landscaping, and other developed ~onditions on the property that currently block v1cws of the Santa Cruz Mountains today from various vant!lgc points . Notwithstanding the evidence in the record. the Planning Commission never explained how reducing the size of the building by another 9,000 square foct would re::Jucc the neighbors' couccrns . In that wuy, my client and the Council were Jen to guess at what an acceptable square footage could be because the Town's policies do not prnvidc any clarification on this point. Because the Commission rejected the Revised Project even in the face of suhstantial evidence in the record and findings that supported staff s recommendation to approve the Rev ised Project. we. re quest that the Council exercise its discretion and adopt findings in support of granting the appeal and approving the Revised Project in accordance w ith the Town Municipal Code. Downtown shuttle service analysis demonstrates further reduction in Project trip generation. The Alberto Way Prnjcct includes a Tnmsporla!ion Demand Managc1m,'Tlt (TOM) Program as discussed in the EIR. The TDM Program incluues the use of a shuttle service ("CAT'" -Community Area Transit) available for future employees of the proposed otlice building. /\s stuted at prior neighborhood meetings, the Planning Commission meetings and last week's Council meeting, LP Acquisitions also agreed to make free Downtown shuttle se rvice available to nearby residents for their trips to Downtown retail businesses and services. Some 11cighlion; expresscu concern that the use or the CAT wuul<l not rt:ducc Projcct- generated traffic. Shuttle service is a st nndard form of transportation demand management and is often used as a mitigation measure to fu1ther reduce trip generation. E).·/ii.bit B contains a 111emorar1dum prepared by Hexagon that estimate~ the trip reduction that may be achieved with employee and resident use of the CAT to amplify the information previously provided in the EIR BN J]()CJOS66vl Buchalter Mayor Sayoc and Councilmcmbcrs September 27, 2017 Page 4 and included in our prior written submittals for the Council's consideration. This information shows that there making the shuttle available for daytime use achieves some incidental hcncfits for the community. LP Acquisitions previously submitted infornrntion to the Town regarding the infeasibility of the Reduced Scale Alternative. According to CHQA. Project alternatives should be considered when the Project results in significant impacts. Since the EIR concluded that the impacts 0fthe Original Project could he mitigated to a lcss-than-signi ficant level that would not significant or adversely affect the environment, technically, a Reduced Scale Alternative would not he necessary to mitigate significant impacts. lf anything, both the Revised Projcd and the Reduced Seale Alternative merely further reduce impads alrcudy found to be less than significunt. Nonetheless, several commenters requested that if the Council grnnts the appeal, that lhc Council approve the Reduced Scale Alternative, and not the Rcvist)d Project. As Mr. Lumb indicated at last week's Council meeting, the Planning Commission was unable to settle on a consistent direction regarding the rcduclion in th~ size of the projc~t, and at times seemed to suggest the Project be reduced Lo the siz;c of the Reduced Scale Alternative. Even though we submillcd infumrnliun indicating that tht~ Revisl'!d PrnjeL.:l size of 83,000 square feet was feasible, the Commission sugg~st.c<l lhat was not good enough and they denied the Project because LP Acquisitions was unable to reduce the size of the Project to the size of the il~/easible Reduced Scale Alternative. One commenter incorrectly stated in its September I 8t 11 submittal, that LP Acquisitions: " ... has not suhmitted any data sufiicicnt to show that purported additional costs or decreased profits of a smaller project alternative would render it impracticable to proceed with lite Project." (Provcneht:r & Flatt, LL.P Letter dated September 18, 2016 (sic) page 4). E¥:1tibit C~ however, contains excerpts from the letters LP Acquisition:s and But:haltt:r previously submitted to the Town sini:t June 2016 addressing the question of foasihility of the altemali vcs. As you will see, this in f(lrmarion explains why the lfoviscd Project is fcasihlc, and why the 74,260 square foot RcduL~ed Scale Alternative identified in the EIR ;iml proposed hy the Planning Commission was not foasiblc from a cost perspective. We also cxpluincd in prior correspnndcncc how the Reduced Scale Alternative failed to meet most of the basic project objectives in accordance with CEQA. Additionally, because the Planning Commission provided conniding din::cliun as to the scope of' any r~duclions in st1uarc footage ranging from 40,000 square to the 74,260 square foct for the Reduced Scale t\ltcrnativc identified in the EIR, my client used the 74,260 square foot threshold as a proxy for determining whether or not further reductions would foil the feasibility test. In other words, if the Projcd is infoasibk al 74,260 square feet, and if it is infeasible based on the existing condition as reported in the EIR, the llN 31090566vl Buchalter Mayor Sayne and Councilmcmbcrs September 27, 2017 Pagc5 Project also foils the test of feasibility at a level below 74,260 square feet. None uf the infonnation contained in E.l:liihit C constitute~ new infomrntin11. For th,~ rr.Rg(11's st~t forth in Exhibit C, and recognizing that the Revised Project already rctlccts significant revisions to address the commenters' and Planning Commissions concerns about the massing and scale orthc Projel.i (e.g., lowering in building height, greater setback from slret:t frontage, etc.) in a.fea.tihle manner, my client submitted information demonstrating its commitment to work with the conummity to incorporate further rcdm;tions in the size and scale of the building. Recfrculation of the Draft l!:IR is not required before the Council were to consider app.-oving the Re\'ised Project Snme commcntcrs rt..-quested that the Town recirculate lhe Oran EIR due to new infonnation that they submjttccl that alleges the Revised Project would result in new significant geologic and hydrologic impucts, traffic impacts, aesthetic and visual impacts, but just as with the prior comments, the latest comments raise the smm: issues as the earlier comments opposing the original Project. No infom1ation provided in the latest round of comments indicuf\!s that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the publk was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and commcnl on the EIR. 1 Furthem1orc, the EJR concluded that nil of the significant environmental impar.;ts of the Original Project could be mitigated to a less than significant level. Since the Revised Project is smaller than the Original Project evaluated in the EIR, the Revised Pwjcct would result in even fewer and lesser environmental impacts than the: O riginal Project. This is also the case for the Reduced Scale Altcmati vc which was similarly anulyzcd in the EIR, for which the Town coucluded the impacts would be proportionately reduced. Section lS 126.6 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that un EIR's analysis of alternatives shall be limited to fc11Siblc ultcrnntivcs ''that would avoid or substantiully lessen" any of the Project's significant environmental impacts. In this case, the E!R contains information regarding the environmental impacts of u Reduced Scale Alternative even though neither the Original Projt:d nor the Revise<l Project would rcsull in any significant L.:nvironmcntul impnl;ts, and even though substantial evidence i11dil.:atcs lhal the Reduced Scale Alternative would he considered infeasible. Thus, the Project EIR complies with CEQA and the Town Council is not requin .. ><l to recireulatc the Em prior to considering approval of the Revised Project, because there are no new significant impacts nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts previously evaluated in the EIR . 1 In foct , we 1101c that in it.s denial. the P!un11i11g Commi!!sion relied on information contain~d in the Draft EIR to decide to deny the Revised Project (hccouse th e Revised Project was reduced lo the sir.c or the infcus ihlc Hcclu ccd Scale A ltcrnat ive) before they reviewed the l:ilR, just St' rhcy woulci 1101 have to certify the Ellt 13N 31090S66vl Buchalter Mayor Sayoc and Councilmcmbers September 27, 2017 Page6 We respectfully request that the Council consider grant the appeal, certify the ETR, and consider approving the ASA and CUP at its meeting next Tuesday. We appreciate your cunsidcration of the enclosed information and look forward to the Town Council's continued deliberations regarding the Albc1io Way Project next Tuesday. Sincerely, By Exhibits cc (via email): Clerk Administrator BN j I 090Sohv I Laurel Prcvetti, Town Manager Rob Schultz, Town Attorney Joel Paulson, Community Developmc111 Director Jennifer Armer, A~MHjalc Plann~r H.andy Lamb, LP Acquisitions Shane Arters, LP Acquisitions Jolie Houstnn, Berliner Cohen Dan OrlofC Orloff WiJJiams Dan Kirby, ARC TEC, lnc. EXI-IIBIT A -er " CID • • • otO • ~ r.d • • ~~ .......... ~~XAGON T ~ANSPORTATION (ONSULTANTS, IN<. Memorandum Date: To: From: Subject: September 19, 2017 Shane Arters, Lamb Partners Gary Black Ollie Zhou Traffic Analysis of the P roposed Downtown S 11uu1e Service tor 401 Alberto Way Office Project Hexagon Transporlation Consultants, Inc. has completed a traffic analysis of the proposed Community Area Transit Free Downtown Shuttle Service in Los Gatos, California. This shuttle service is being proposed as part of the proposed 401-409 Alberto Way office cJeveloprnent localed at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Alberto Way and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. The shuttle would be available to the public and is proposed to run with a 30-to 45-minute headway between 10:30 AM and 3:30 PM on weekdays as well as on a select number of weekends. The shuttle would depart the proposed office development at 40·1-409 Alberto Way and travel clockwise eastbound on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, southbound on Los Gatos Boulevard/Main Street, northbound on Santa Cruz Avenue, eastbound on Andrews Street, southbound on University Avenue and eastbound on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road (see Figure 1 ). The shuttle would stop at the Masonic Hall, Town Hall, Los Gatos Town Park Plaza, Downtown Los Gatos and the Walgmens and Safeway on Santa Cruz Avenue. Based on the proposed 30-to 45-minute headway, it 1s ant1c1pated mat the shuttle service would provide 6 lo 10 roundtrip services through downtown Los Gatos between 10:30 AM and 3:30 PM. Assuming a maximum 30-person capacity for the shuttle, this free st1uttle service could potentially serve a maximum of 300 passengers (30-person capacity with 10 roundtrips) per day. While most of the passengers are expected to be future employees at the proposed office development, it is anticipated th;:it some residents along Alberto Way would also utilize this shuttle service , thus reducing the number of vehicle trips between Albe1io Way and downtown Los Gatos. Residents in downtown Los Gatos could also ric'le this shuttle to the Walgreens and Safeway on Santa Cruz Avenue, and employees on Main Street could also ride this shuttle to downtown Los Gatos during lunch time. Assuming 20°/t, of aH passengers were induced lo make the trip because of the shuttle service (meaning they would not have made a trip without the shuttle service), the remaining 80% of the passengers (maximum 240 passengers) would have made the trip by driving their own car otheiwise. Assuming 80% of the passengers that were making the trip regardless of the shuttle service are future employees. and employees travel in pairs (two per car), the shuttle service could eliminate a maximum 96 vehicle trips per day that would have been made by employees at the proposed office development driving to downtown Los Gatos. Assuming the remaining 20% of the passengers that were making the trip regardless of the shuttle service are local residents, and residents drive alone, the shuttle service could eliminate a maximum 48 vehicle trips per day that would have been made by residents driving to downtown Los Gatos. Therefore. assuming a 30- minute shuttle headway and the shuttle has a 30-person capacity, the proposed shuttle service could eliminate maximum 144 vehicles per day. There would also be comparable savings in greenhouse gas emissions. 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 ·San Jose, California 95113 ·phone 408.971.6100 ·fax 408.971.6102 · www.hextruns.com EXHIBIT B EXl-IIBIT C Buchalter September 2C), 201 7 VIA E-MAIL (RSCHULTZ@LOSGATOSCA.GOV) Mr. Rob S1.:hullz. Town Attorney Town of Los Gatos 1 10 E. Main Street Los Gatos, C'A 95031 Phone: (408) 354-6872 Errn1i I: rschul lz@losgalos(;a.gov 55 ScC011d Sheet 5.,,1e 1700 San Franci sco. CA 94 105 4 15.2-U .U!lOO Phone 4 15.227 0770 Fax FHo l~urnlw.r : L4342-0002 .J 15. i'/17 :J!"lllfl Direr.I aguerra(g~buc·1a lte r.oom Re: 401-409 Alberto W11y, APN 529-23-·018 Infonnation Regarding Project Feasibility As you know, Buchalter represents LP Acquisitions, the dcvclnper of the project located at 401-409 Alberto Way in Los Gatos ("Alberto Way Project"). At its meeting of Septemher 19, 2017, the Los Gatos Town Council closed the public heari ng hut invited the Ctpplicant and the public tl'l suhmit written comments for the Council's consideration at its upcoming meeting of October 2 , 2017 concerning the Alberto Way Project. I understand that questions arnse concerning the inJi.mna(ion we previously provided the Town regarding the feasibility (or lack thcreo t) related to th~ Reduced Scale Altcrnati vc evaluated in the 40 1-409 Alberto Wa y Draft Environrncntul Impact Report ·· State Clearinghouse Number 2015122041 t"Albe1to Way Draft ElR"). Please find attached for your review and consideration the foll o wing documen ts Lhal we previously submitted to the Town that spccilically addn.:ss the cost C(ll1 Sid erations aspect of the feasibility of the Project alternatives: • Exc..:erpts from the Buchalter May 9, '.W 17 l.cltcr containing our Sllpplemental responses to address the Provencher & Flatt, LLP ("Provencher & Flatt'') Letter submitted on behalf of the A l berto Way Neighbors: Los Gatos Commons, Pueh lo de Los Gatos, Los Cas itas and Bella Vista Village ("Albctio Way Neighbors") for the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on May I 0, 2017 for the 401-409 Alberto B'I 3HJ78372v:2 buchalter.com l o~ AngP.les Napa Valley Orange Colln\y Sacrament o Sa 11 Franci sco Srn tt srl ale Buchalter Mr. Rob Sd1ultz, Town Attornt!y Scplcmbt:r 26, 2017 Pagc 2 Way Project (Attachment /); • Excerpts from the LP Acq uisitions' M~irch 17 , 2017 Re sponse Letter to the Planning Commission from the Public Hearing on August 24, 2016 (Attachment.?}; and • June 13, 2016 Letter from LP Acquisitions rega rding th e applicant's comments on the Alberto Way Drnn EJR (Attachment 3). CKQA Definit ion of Feasibility The Cal ifornia Envimnmcntal Quality A(:t (Pub. Res. Code§§ .2 LOOO er seq.) ("CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines Secti.on 15126.6(a) r~uire that an EIR examine a range of alternatives that arc potentially feasible to a proposed project (sec e .g ., City oflonp, /Jcach ~·. Los Angeles UnUiecl Sc:lr. Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.411' 889, 920). An EIR is not required to evaluate infeasible altemativcs pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section l 5 16.(J('a). An EIR is also not rt!quircd to consider alternati ves lhat do not result in si gnificant environmental advantages in compurison with the proposed Project. This is true purticl1larly in thos e instances in which tbc alternative s wo uld not reduce sign i ficant environmental impacts, such as in our case when the Project docs not result in any significant unmitigated environmental impad:s . As you know, Public Resources Code Section 2 I 061 .1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 153 64 define "feasible'' as "capable of being accomplish ed in a suc ces sful manner wi thi n a reas onable period of time. taking into a c count econ o mi c, cnvironmentn l, social, and t.cchnological factors " for purposes o f complying with C EQA (als o sec, C EQA Guidt!lincs S ection 15 ! 26 .6(t)). Among the factors that may be considered when addressing the foa s ibility of on-site ~iltcrnatives are site suitahility, economic viHbility, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or r~gu l a!Dry limitations, and jurisdictional bmmduries . No one of these fa ctors establishes a fixed limit on the s cope ofrcaso nahlc alternat ives under C EQA . 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 151 26 .6 (~1( l ); Citizens (~/'Oo/ew Valley v. Ho ard of Supervisors , 52 Cul 3d 553. 565 (1990). Ecom )mic infeasibility mu st be suppo1i cd by evidence and analy.sis showing that it cannot r eason ably be implemented, bCJ scd on 11 reasonably prudent stand ard . Kings County Farm Bureau t'. City off lanfimi, 221 C al. App. 3cl 692 , 73 7 ( 1990). The Revised Protect (83,000 st) LI' Acquisit ions reduced the s ize of its Orig inal Project to res pond to the Pl ann ing C ommi ssi on 's direction from A ugust 2 016 to further reduce the si ze of the Proj ect as di s cussed in At1aclim e11t 2 . My client's revised 83,000 square fo ot Project which was presented to the Planning Commission and the Town Council is greater than the 74,260 squnre-foot Rcduc~d Scale Altcmativc included in the Drnft EIR, and it is les s tlliin the 92 ,800 square foot original project eva lu a ted in th e EIR . T he R ev is ed Project at 83,000 square fee t with the subsu1ta cc HN :rnmn12v.'.! Buchalter Mr. Rob Schultz, Town Attorney Scptcm lx;r 26, 2017 Page 3 parking guragc is feasible ·for the reasons discussed in 11ttaclune11t 1. B y cont rast, the 74 ,260 square foot Reduced Scale Alternative is not foasible as explained in Attaclunent. 2 and furthe r discussed below. The EIR Reduced Project Alternative (74,260 sO We submitted a comment letter on behalf of LP Acquii;ilions regarding the Town 's Drnfl EIR questioning the Draft EIR 's analysis of the Reduced Project Alternative when that altcmativc foiled lo meet most of the basic project objectives (Attachment 3) required fo r the Project. LP Acquisition~' March 17, 201 7 Letter i ncludcd in the May I 0, 2017 Staff R<..:port fm1hcr explained why the smaller 74,260 square foot olfo.:e building surrounded by surface parking foiled to meet CEQA 's definition of foasibility due to cost considerations. The March 17, 2017 Letter contained in Attachment 2 focused specifically on the question of economic feasibility, and explained that when combined wi t h t he land price, the land acx1uisition cost and the parking strncturc cost resulted in a development cos t of S6 I 5 per building square foot. Current contractor estimates as ofSeptcmhcr 2017 for constru ction co stR arc now above$ 700 per building square foot. For the 83,000 square foot Revised Project, the construction costs result in a total of approximately $58,l 00,000 j ust for construction (R . Lam b, LP Acquisitions, September '.:!5, 2017). By way of example, one sub-category of costs, the co sts for the two story underground parking structure.:, an:: estimated at $ 15 ,000,000. Th is is because the parking garage is very technical to design, given drive ais le spacing and clfo.:icrn.:ies in laying out the required parking spaces, and lo be ef!icitml, must allow lh~ office building l o sit directly ubovi.:.: the guragc using the sumc perimeter. Moreover, building square footage reductions do not equat e to con-esponding redu ct ions in garage square fiiotage and nsso c iatL'ti costs. This means thnt reducing the building si z e to 74,260 square foet under the Reduced Project Alternative would not result in a compara ble reduction in the size of the parking garage. Due to the constraints identified in the preceding paragraph, the parking spaces would be taken out of the surfitce pm-k ing, not the parking garage. My client is further limited iu its ability tu reduce Lhu gurngc given thut at a 9,0DO square foot reduction in oflicc space, the resulting reduction in parking needed for the project wou ld be equal to 36 stalls. The architect, however, is limited in his ability lo de sign an efficient drive aisle and parking scenario, even with only dropping 36 stulls. Cons~quen tl y , this wuuld en tail a redesign of the office building, which would chang~ the footprin t oft he bu ilding, thereby li.ntber incr<..:asing costs. Accordingly, any reduction in building size results in a co rresponding increase in Lhe costs for the garage alone, on a per square foot hasis. Another constraint represented in the information LP Acquisitions submitted in March 201 7 is altrihutablc to investor and lender interest given certain indu stry st andards regarding n.:turn on cost to jusli ty the investment. For ex.ample, with respect to the Alberto Way Project, BI'\ ~! lll7X .l12 v2 Buchalter Mr. Rob Schultz; Town Attorney September 26, 2017 Page4 lenders expect that the project will realize a 12% rctum on costs. This rctum provides the lender with some assurances to mitigate potential risks and that the lender's funds are safely covered on the Project. For the 83,000 square foot Revised Project, the return on cost including the lnnd costs would account for an nmount signifie8ntly he.l ow the 12 % rctum on costs, and with the 74,260 square foot Reduced Scale Alternative. the return is even lower approximating clos~r to IO% return. Plcast: Jut me know if you have any questions concerning the information we have provided rcgurd the infoasib ili t y of the Reduced Scale Alternative. We appreciate your consideration of the enclosed informat ion and look forward to the Town Council's continued deliberations regarding the Alberto Way Prnjci.;t nc.~t Tut:sday. Attachments cc (via email): Randy Lamb Shane Arters Jolie Houston Dan Orloff Dan Kirhy HN 311J7U7.2v2 By Sincerely, BUCHALTER A Profc:isional Corporation Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Arm~r M~y 9, 20l 7 rage 5 Thus , all of the tramc comments thnt the commenlcrn conli ll uc to misc wen.: a lr~a d y addressed in the El R, the technic al analyses and the prior responses lo comments, includ ing our April 241h Supplenu:ntal Responses, and there are no n~w significant impacts triggering the need for further imalysis or a change in the project to address the Project's traflic i mpacts. New Residential Altcnuttivc On~ commenter has suggested that my cl icnt has not evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives that would significantly reduce or avoid the Project's impacts o r cx1>lained why l hc other altemativcs were rejected in light of the "unacknowledged" impact s raised by !he commenter, implying that the smalh:r oflice huikling surrounded by surfm.:e parking i11 lieu of a subsurface parking garage should be evaluated as au allemarive to t he Project Another commenter suggested that a residential alterna ti ve for an active adult community be evaluated . Reg arding the Hf R's analysis or alternatives, the EJR evaluated three alt ernatives to the Proposed l'rnjccl. An alternative site location alternati ve was considered bu t rejected because the reason for the Project is to redevelop the Project site, and no other suitable sites were available in the vic inity or the Proj ecl site that could accomplish that same basic proj ec t purpose as explained in Seel ion 6.3 of ~he Draft ElR. The applicant's further n.wisions to the Projet~t renectcd in the revised Project were designed to reduce the sizt:l or the Project to !U,000 squan.~ feet to respond to the Planning Comm issi on 's direction from August 201 6. The revised Project at 83.000 sq uare lcet is greater than the 74,260 squar.! fi>ot Reduced Scale Alternative included in the llrnfl EIR and lc~s than the 92,800 square foot project evaluated in th e EIR. Public Resources Code Sel:tion 21061.1 defines '"fous ihle" as "capable of be ing ~tccomplishcd in a successful manner within u rt:asonabltl period or time , taking into acco unt economic, cnvironmcnial, social and technological factors ." Among the fhclurs that may b1.: taken into ac\-'ount when addressing the foasibility of on-site altcrnalives an: sit e suitability, economic viahilily, av<1ilability of' iufraslruclure. general plan consisleni.;y, oth~r plans or regulatory limitations, and jurisdictional boundaries. No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives under CEQA. 14 Cal. Cmk Regs. Section 15126.6(1)(1); Citizensf?f'Golela Valiey 1·. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal 3d 553 , 565 (1990). Economic infoasibility must be suppoitcd by evidence and analysis showing that it cannot reasonably be implemented, based on a reasonably prndenl stumJurd. Kings County Fann liureau v. Ci~l' of/JanJ(Jrd, 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 737 (1990). The revised Project at 83 ,000 square foct \'v'ilh the subsurface parking garage is fea si b le, as cxplaiut:<l in my client's April 24'11 Supplemental Responses. A s LP Acquif;itions in d ica ted on numerous occasions, one of the key project objectives is to build a Class A otlice building in the Los Gato s nwrkct. Specific factors that are critical to !ht: development of a Class A office huilding lo accommo<lutc this mark e t ~ector include: Buchalter Ms. Jennifer Armer May 9, 2017 Pnge 6 • Class A tech company users require large foolprints uf35,000 sq uare feet per tloor and above as de.monstralt!J by the recent approval of the Ncttlix campus. • Rl!cruiting, hiring and rdention of' employees is extrcrnely competitive in Silicon Vallt:y and ltugc facilities with many amenities arc the future of high tech cmploy111~11t oppurtlmitics for the fo rt:s~e.ablc fhture. • Class A tech users need a minimum building(s) size for the amenities th ey offer th eir employees to provide the services and folly ahsnrh the costs (i.e., fi t ness rooms. b ike storage, cafott:ria, Dutside common spaces and large conference facilities). • Employee health and wdlbcing requires access to natural light as a priority and is l'acili1ated by large glass linc.s and skylight areas where possibh!. • Secured parking is a Class A space aclvnntagc for a company by locating tena nt parking underground . l{cgarding a smalk:r office building SlllToumlt:d by sur lace parking, by contrast . the building developer would be unable to provide secured park ing for its tenants, or accommotiutc the types of building amenities and features that arc im:ludt:d in a Class A office building in response to market dc1mmds. Regarding a senior residential community aliernative, my client met with Town adviso ry officials cnrly in the process t o discuss a residential project for th e site, and was adv ised tha t residential uses would not be permitted on the property for the following reasons: • res idcntial use is not a pcnni!tecl or conditionally permitted use in this zoning district, uncl thus would require a g(:ncra I plan amend ment find rezoning in orJer to change the land use 011 the site; • a residential project would impact schools by adding mo re kids to the 'town that would lead to further crowding in the schools and result in the need to add more ck1ssrooms :.ind teachers. (Admittedly. an adiw adu lt community wo uld not have the same impact on schools). Additionally, given the site's proximity to Highway l) and l lighway 17, u residential community on the property would be ex.posed to elevated noise and air quality impacts due tu exposme to vehicular-generated noise and air pollutant emissions. Scnjor citizens arc considered sensitive receptors and may be exposed lo potentia l re s piratory issues due to th e proximity t <.l t he freeway. Also, irthe commcntcrs are concerned about the po tent ial exposure tu inund ation due to dam failure at Lenihan Dam then 1hat concern would be exacerba ted by locati ng mo re residents in the area as compared lo the prorosed Projec t which would re~ult in exposure of an office building that is not occupied nn a full-time basis. Moreover, residential uses would generate approximately 9 Lu JO tl1:1ily trips per unit d~pending 011 the type or dwelling unit, the reb y llN 2XM l4 115v2 LP ACQUJSITIONS lliAL EST..\H l>tVCLOl'M£NT M•~h17,2017 ~~~ ~~s M•.Jeonife. Arme<,..,c ciat~~~ pl,.~ Town of Los Gatos ~-V'-C> ·~ ) ·- Community Development Dt!partment 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Phone: (408) 354-6872 Email: jarmer@losgatosca.g ov Rf:: Response Letter to Planning Commission from Public Hearing on August 24, 2016. 405 Alberto Way Architecture and Site Application S-15-056 Conditional llse Permit Application U-15-CI09 AP N 529 -23-018 Thank you fat rer.ommending approval of LP /\cqulsltfon's above-referenced project to the Planning Commission at its hearing on August 24, 2016. In anticipation of the continued Planning Cornmlssi<J11 Public Hearing scheduled for March 22°0, this response letter describes the architectural changes between the Original Plan Set (a/k/a 401-405 Alberto Way) submitted on July 13, 2016 nnd the Revised Plan Set (a/k/a 405 AILertu Way) submitted on March 9, 2017, and responds to the Planning Commissioner's direction from the August 24, 2016 Public Hearing. SUMMARY OF ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES: Since the August 24, 2016 Planninu Commission meeting, LP Acquisitions has been meeting with the neighbors and Interested parties, and we Initiated a comprehensive effort to redesien our Project In re$ponse to both the Town ""d nelg~borhood comments and concerns. Based on the feedb;ick we rece ived from the Planning Commission and the neighborhood, we revised thP-architecture to lnccrpurate the following key de sign modifications: We combtned the former two (2), two-story buildlngs into a single, two-story building thereby resulting in a 9,000 square foot reduction In floor area, and a rPdurtion In OVP.rall heights by 5 .5 feet on the north side and 6.0 fe~t on the south side of the new building when compared t o the previous two buildings. Other change s Include : " To illustrate the reduction in the buildi11g mass ing and size, the original design was 1,614,290 cubic feet ("cf") and the pm p o sed redesign is 1,207, 665 cf. l'herefore, we reduced the bulk.ling size by 25%. 535 Mld c11£•ftt>fd lto ~d. Sui tt-190, Menl u l'ark, t'A 94025 I 650.326 .1600 APPLICANT RESPONSE LEITER • We relocated the office buildlnH to the rear of the site, against the setback lines on Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd . (Route 9) and the on-ramp to Highway 17. This accomplishes two very important eoals: 1) allows for significantly more open space 011 the Alberto Way front;.ige to the building, which ls utilized for additional surface pa rk ing and amenity spar.e, and 2) enhance thP. views of the exlstlng trees and mountalm bl!h\nd the building, when viewed from the prnperties on the other side of Alberto Way. " We shifted the building by an addition a! 10 feet away from the north property line, in response to concerns from the Las Casitas neighbors which borders the Applicant 's property to the north. The reduced building size, along with a reduced parking rntio of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet uf building area, results ln a 58-space reduction in the uv~rall parking count from 390 pi!rking spaces to 332 parking spaces. In re sp onse 10 the Tuwn and neighborhood concerns regarding the former desiGn's lack of surface parking, we increased the surface parking count from 7 to 42 parking spaces. The overa II parking reduction also results in a significant reduct ion in size of the underground parking garage (whlch we retained) thereby accommodating all construction staeing on site, instead of in th~ street. We replaced the proposed building foundation with a concrete supt:r5tructure In order to significantly reduce the building height by 5.5 feet on the north side and 6.0 feet on the south side. Consequently, the revised building footprint preserves the views of the existing trees and mountains behind the building, when viewed from the properties on the other side of Alberto Way. We also eliminated the tower elements in response to the Planning Commission ;i nd neighbors' concerns that the elements were too prominent, and we eliminated the sec<md -floor e><terior balcony on the north (Las Casitas) .side of the building. All second-floor e1<terior balcon ies now face Alberto Way thereby enh an ci ng thP. design hie r archy of the bui lding to create more definition between the ~round and sewnd floor design elements. LP Acquisitions retnined the Mission style architectwe which maintains the small -town flavor of other, nearby commercial developments in Los Gatos and resembles the massing and scale of the other existing buildings in the immediate neighborhood. Lastly, and in response to both the Town an d neighbor concerns with respect to traffic ancJ safety on Alberto w~v. cmd consistent with the Town's Complete Street Ordinance, we are proposing to dedicate ~ portion of the site for the purpose of widening and straig htening Alberto Way, allowing for the addition of bofh a bike lane in front of the property and an extended right turn lane onto Saratoga-Los Gatos Road ~Route 9). We have identified locations for detached sidewalk improvemP.nts on both the Alberto Way and Sar<itoea-Los Gatos Road (Route 9) street frontages, and are proposing to install new curb, ramps and crosswalk at the Saratoga-Los Gato s Road (noute 9) to the liighwuy l7 on ramp. We have addressed the Town's and neighbors ' concerns reg11rding the project through the design modifications summarized above •ind further discus.'ird in ARC TEC's letter dated March 2 [ I)ACQUfSJT lCJ NS ,J •. R~Al. [S·rj\rF DEV~l .OPl\'\ENT November 7, 2017 Ms. Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Co m munity Development Department HOE. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Phone: (408) 354·6872 Email: jnrmer@losgatosca.gov RE: 405 Alberto Way Architecture and Site Applic:ation S-15-056 Conditional Use Permit Application IJ-15-009 APN 529-2.3 -018 Thank you for scheduling the above-referenced rroject for the upcoming Planning Commission hearing on December J.3, 2017. We are pleased to submit our revised plans for 405 Alberto Way in response to the Town Council's direction from its October 3, 2017 meeting. PROJECT STATUS LP Acquisitions, LLC submitt~d the following applications: Architect11rc nnd Site Application 2- 15-056, Conditional Use Permit Application U-1.5 -009, nnd E1wironmental Impact Report EIR-16 · 001 for a request to demolish three existing office buildings and the developrn ent of a new, two-story office building with below-grade and at-grncle parking (the ''Project") on the property formerly identified ns 401 409 Alberto Way (405 Alberto Wc:iy) (the "Site"). During the Plann ing Commission's review of the Project, we made quite a few design changes to address the Commission's and publlc's comments. Suell changes were wnsidered highlights and were rece ived positively by th e Plnnning Commission . For examµle, we replaced the proposed building foundation with a r:oncrete stiperstructur e in order to significantly reduce the I.wilding height by 5.5 feet on the north side and 6.0 fe~t on the south side. We also elirninc:itecl tlte tower elements in response to the Planning Co mmissio n ancl neighbors' concerns that the el ements were too prominent, <i nd we elhninrited t he second-floor exterior balcony on the north (Las Casitas) side of the building. All seco nd-floor exterior b.a fc:onie s face Alberto W ay thereby enhancing the d es ign hi er ard1y of the building to create more defi nition between tht' ground and second floor cfosign elements. LP /\cquisitions retai 1wd the Mission stylP. architecture which maintains the small-town feel of other, nearby commercial developments in Los Gcitos and resembles the massing focus on the grol!nd floor and the hu man scale of the other e><istlng b uildi ngs in the i rnrne d iate 11eiehbo rhoocl. 535 Middlef1~lrl Road, su:tc ·100. Men:o Pi.Irk, Cf, 9402~ I f-iSO.:W•. 1 Gfl(l t\PPLl(/\NT RESPOf\JSE tElTEH And in re.spon!>i~ to bolh the Town and neir::h!Jor c:onc:erns wi th respect to trnffic and safety on Alberto Way, and consistent with th e Town's Complete Street Ordinance, we are proposing to ded icate a portion of the site for the purpose of w idening and straightt:?nin~ A l bert o Way, allowing for tlit~ addition of both a bike lane in front of the. prop c~rty <rn d nn exte nded r ir:;ht t urn lane onto Saratog;.i-Lns Gatos Road (Route 9). We identified locations fo r detac hed sidewalk improvements on both the /\lberto Way and Sciratoga-1.cis Ga t os Road (l\o ute 9) street front age~, and are proposing to i nstall new curb, ramps and cros swa lk at t he S;-1ratoga-los Gatos Road (Route 9) to the Highway 1'I on rarnp. ri11ally, we inc.fuel ed tt !;ignal intP.rc.onnec:t between Alberto W<iy/l.os Gi:ltos·Silratog;:i intersection and t h e Los Gatos Blvd/Los Gatos- Saratoga intersection to expedite traffic flow and to improve safety. Afler two years of proc.essing and revising the Proje ct to further reducP. the size of the Project and provide for these design chcinges, the Planning Commission nonetheles<> denied the Pro j ect at its May 10, 2017 meeting on the basis that the P.-ojec.t was still too big. Fol lowine the May, 10, 2017 denial, we appealed the Commi!>sion's action to the Town Council to review and overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the Project. At its m e eting of September 19, 2017, the Town Council <ir.ceptecl public comment s on our appeal and began its de li berations regarding the Project. While the Council appreciated some of th e revisions and design fea t ures incorporated into the Project to further reduce the square footage to 83,000 squr1re feet ("the Second Rt!dt'sien"), the Council ultinwtely decided on October S, 2017 to rema nd the Project back to the Planning Commission due to the receipt of additional information and with <i request t o f u rther reduce the size of the Proj ect to 74,260 square feet ("the Third Redes ign). We are submitting a ·1 hird Redesign of om Project plans to resp ond to the Cou ncil's direction to further reduce the size of the Project and provide ndditional design changes as fu rther addressed below. All of the previous design changes remain In the design plans for lhe proposed Third Redesign . SUMMARY OF ARCHITECTURAi. CHANGES: Since the October 3, 20J / ·r own Council rni>eting, LP Ac qu isitions initi<i tecl a comprehEms ive effort to rP.design our Project for the third time in ff~Sponse to both t he Town and neighborhood comments cind concern s. BasPd on the feedb<1cf< W(! receiv~d from the Towri Council and the neighborh ood, w~~ revised the architecture to inr.o rporate the following key df'~ign modificati ons: .. We reduced the Project to 74,260 sf in accordance with t he Council 's di re ction and reduwd the builcline rnassi11e to nr.hic~ve" further redudion in t he size and scrile of the building. • LP Acquisitions ;ind ArcTec met with the Tow11 Staff on Octob er 910 in order to obta i n their input and direction i n the redesign process . As pC1rt of this effort, w e presfmted the ndditional building size n~du ction, <ind Plnnning De pn rtmP.nt ~t.:iff inrl ic:ilted t h at LP 2 APPLICANT RESPONSE LE"ITEn Acquisitions' Third Redesign plan would b1:~ consistent with the EIR's Reduced Scale> Alternative of 74,260 square feet. 0 The proposed 74,260 sf Project would re duce the overall pcirking spaces from 332 to 298, which is a reduction of 30 garage pr1rklng stalls and 4 surface parking stalls. Th~ reduction in garaeE! par!<ing stalls result~• in a srna!ler building footprint with ;:i corresponding reduction in excavation. The reduced excavation results in commensurate reductions in the cost of earth movement und off-haul during the wnstruc:tion process. Please see the att<1ched "Revised Project Gonslruction Export Det;:iils for 40S Alberto W ~1y which indic<l tes thal the woposed Third Rerle.i;ig11 will now require ;m estimated !;Q,67J. r.ubic yards of cut rind all c.onstruction staging can occui:.Q!l site. Ar.cording to the general contractor, the rough order of magnitude (ROM) savings for e;.irth movement and off-haul alone wou l d be as fo ll ows: Conc.retc structure sav ings {redu ced SF): Basement+elev;:ited deck+Podium "' 11,517 SF x $45/SF = $ 518,265 savings 11 Offliaul savings (r·edL1ced volume): Basement {5,105 SF x n ft ::.. .112,3 '.IO CF/ 27 Cf/CY= 4,160 CY x $35/CY = $ 145,600 savings Misctillaneous bnsernent savings (shoring, waterproofing, MEP/F}: Rasernent+elev<lted decl<+Podium = 11,517 SF x $30/SF "' $ 345,510 saving s Reduct:d square footage for the Building Shell : Building reduced SF 8,740 SF x $250/SF = $2,'.1.85 ,000 snvings With all of the reductions in square footage ond reduced grading and off-haul, the Th ir d Re- Design would resu lt in a reduction in costs of npproximately $3 .2M to $3.SM. Consequently, with the rf:!du ctio11 in grading and constniction costs, the Third Redesign would be feasible. " Th e lhiru Redesign preserves 38 of the 42 at-grade parking spaces. • The Third Redesign reflected in the 74-,260 squcire foot building shifts the building away from the northern property line by an additional 30 feet (56 feet in total, taking into consideration the 15 feet required setback plL1 s an additional 11 feet. proposed from lfa~ Second Redesign e~1rlier this Sprin3); conseqm~nlly, the adclltio11<1I building reduction of 8,740 sq. ft (83,000 less 74,260) on ~he northern side of the property now provides for more expansive mountain v iew corridors that will be visible from both the street and <idjacent µroperties across Alberto W<iy. • The Third Redesign also creates more open space on the northern side of the bu ild ing for a large dog park and an amen ity area for tenants <Ind visito rs. 3 APPLICANT HESPONSF. LET'l"ER ~ L<istly, the Third f\edesign repositions the building entrance to the center of t he site allowing the surface parking to be placet.I more ew11ly tl1rougho11\: the Project site th<rn under the prior dt:>sign. This repositioning al so cre<1tes more open space ilt the southeast co rner of the property for an additional amenity area open to tenants anr.J visitors. The cumulative design and redesign modifications we have proposed over the la ~l 2 4 nwnth~ are designed to 1 espond to t he Phmning Commission, Town Co u ncil and public's comments. The proposed modificiltium. described abnve arE:: fe<isible and repres~nt minor revisions and clarificcitinns to the ovN;.dl project description that will not acid sign ifican t new informati on t<l the Town of Los Gato5 401-409 Alberto Way Draft and Finni Environmental lrnpat;t Repurl (W:). This informa tion will not req uire recircul ation ofth~ EIH becau~e the proposed 1noclific:atinn.~ will further lessen i mpacts that the Town previou~ly f0t111d to be less than-sign ificcmt as reflected in t he EIR's discussion of the Reduced Scale /\ltcrnativc. furthe r the ch;rnges incorpornted into the Project would not involve a new signifa.ant e n virnnnH:~nta l impact, a subst<lntial increase in the severity of n prior envirn11111ental impact, or <1 foC1sible mitigation measure or Liltl!rnativc that we declined to adopt and that will clea rly lessen any project i mpa cts . No information provided in our submitt<Jf indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclu so ry or that the public was deprived of a rne<mingful opportunity to review and comment on the EIR. SUMMARY OF COUNCii. DIRECT/ON TO THE APPLICANT FROM OCTOBER 3, 2017 PUBl.IC HEARING The fo llowi11e summarizes key comments from the Town Counci l t1nd members of the public that were received after the Council meeting, followed by our response to the comment referred to as, the "Applicant Response." Town Council Comment: Provide ;in open space easement/public space (PAPS) fo r both the rlog rirea on the 11orth side <ind the new tlrea on the south side adjacent to the p <irking lot; Applicant Response: LP Acqu i sitio11s agrees to provide 01wn spac~! I publ ic space for a dog area on the north side <ind an <idditionnl new open space area on the s<l uth side adjacent to t he prirking lot available for use by th1:' tenants and th~~ public/neigh bors on cin infon11 a l IJ;i!.is . Town Council Comment: l~eduw squ<1re footage 1o EIR alteroative level of 74,260 square feet. Applicant Response: Please reter to th£! summary of <1rchitectural changes se t forth e1bove. As indicated in the summary above, th<~ reduction in square footi.lg e is consistent with t he EIR Reduced Scale Alternntiv0 wntainecl in the FIR. Consequently, the EIH fully evalua ted the cnviro11mr~11ldl i111pi=1cts associated with the Third ~edesign proposa l. Town Cou11cil Corrm1ent: u~e Viewglass or simil<ir product to creatf? C!utornatic. dimming of I he glass in the evening to meet neighborhood light standards 4 /\PPl.ICANT RC.SPONSE LETTER Applitc111t Response: Tlie Third Redesign includes Viewglass for building win<low tret1 tm ent in order to mt1int;iin privacy ;:ind redttcP. lighting impacts to ne arby resid e nts. Town Council Comment: Try to do something with the entry. Applicant Response: Please refer to the !·evised east elevation. The m ain entry retai ns the elegant two-story element and canopy over the iYlnin entry doors t o help identify the rm1ln entry of the building. The entry has been further improved by p rov iding a more symmetrical look on either side of the main entry element. Erp.rnl··size<i pundrnd window openings Clrf~ located on the grounrl and second floor on each side o f the main entry and t he dimension of the two-story vertical walls on each side of the main entry are now i dentica l. The change in the main entry design provides for C1 more easily identifiable 1nain en try and als o better frames the main entry t h an under the Second Redesign . Town Council Comment: Recess th e window further on the second floor to create dettiil. Applicant Response: The northern favade of the bu riding has bee n pulled back one full column bay (30 feet) on t he north sid e so the window tine is now further away from th e northe rn property line that abt1ts the neighb o ring residential prop !:.~rty to th e north. Recessed pu nched windows and trellis features at eCJch punched w indow opening have been reta ined from the previous design. As the buildi ng is now mirrower when vie wed from Al berto W ay, the repetition of windows on each different fa~ade element has been r educed, giving the building il more elegant look and feel from the prior design. Town Council Comment: Design and build the building to LEEU Gold level; Applicant Response: The site and building will be designed to LEED Gold equiva lency. Town Council Comment: lncrc<ise tree si1i11r, in the front to shield the b11ilding sooner from the nP.ighborhood . Applicant Response: Plt!ase refer to tile revised landscnpc: plan s. We increased the tree sizes in the Second Redesign in several key locations i'.llong the Alberto Way side of the build i ng. Town Cou ncll Comment: Provid P. a c.ondition to allow overflow pn rki ng in the swface lot are;i ln off.·huc;iness hours. Applicant Response: LP Acquisi tion s agrees to a condition o f approval allowing for nearby resi dents to use th e Project surface lot parking spac es after busines s hours. Town Council Comment: Schedule week ly traffi c: meetings during construction. 5 APPLICANT RESJ10NSE LETTER App licant Response : The Third Redesign reciute.s the ~ize an d footprint of t he llnclerground parking structure with a corresponding decrea~f:! in the overall parl<lng count by 34 spaces. The reduction in the footprint of the structure ancl 1-hl:. rorrcsponding red uction in pC1rkinr, spaces provides for C1n are<1 on t he Project site to serve as cons tru ction staging, in accorciance with the Planning Commission's request in the Second Redesign of the Project. The on-site construction stagin g area reduces t.h e amount of export off· hau I during excavation . Plea se see the attarhP.d "Hevised Project Construction Export 1Jet<1ils for 40S Al berto W'ily" and "Revised Proje ct Construction Details for 405 Alberto Wuy which further describe the revisions. Additionally, the proposed Construction Plan, which will be fonncilly su bmitted for review by the Town Council during the permit r eview stC1ge, provides for weel<ly constructi on 111a1mgerncnt meetings with the neighbor). Fowler Comment Letter: Describe the expected hours for potential t en ants. (Fowler letter) Applicant Response : The propos~d hnur5 of operatio1i for tena nts in the building are from 7am to Gpm Monday th rough Friday. Fowler Comment Letter: Pro vide information rcgardi11g the "h igh demand" for Class II. office space in Los Gatos. WIH~re is the demand coming from, Los Gatos or e lsewhere? Applicant Response: The current Class A office vacancy rate in Lo5 Gatos i s less than 1.5%, ilS indic<ited in the report g1-~11ernled by Colliers. Please St~e the attached "Colliers Los Gatos Office Cl<iss A S1rnpshot". Such J low v;icr1ncy rate indicates that there is an enormous dern<lnd fo r more Clas.5 I\ office in Los Gatos. The Tech industry is driving the i ncre<1sed office dema nd in the Silicon Valley with an emphasis on bringing jobs close to housing. Fowl er Comment Letter: Explain why the project objectives cou ld not be met by a build ing l ess than 83,000 square feet. Applicant Response: We proviclecl extens ive infonn <1tiun in our prior correspondence to thP. Town exp1'1ining why the 74,/.60 square foot buildin g was determined to be infeasi ble. With the fu r th er <Jdjustments to the building design and reduction in excavation, we have been <1ble to substantially reduce the costs of t:0nst1 uc:tion for the 74,260 squc;re foo t building .so t h.::i t it would be ret1siblc from <1 cost and technologic.t1I pNspPr.l:ivi~ as f u r t he r expla i ned above . Town Coutlcil Comment: Please clarify th~ Caltrans encroachment permi t process and when Caltrans will provide input regarding the proposed improvemenb within Caltrnns riehl-of-way. Applicant Response-In the attached letler dated November l , 2017 (the "Hex ;:tgo n Letter"), Hex;.:igon summari zes the Caltr;rns 1~ncro;:tchment p ermit prores!;. The proposed w idening of Los G<1tos-Saratngr1 Rocicl w ith the offsite improvements requested by the Town Council will encroach on Ca ltrans right· of-way, cine! will therefore requi re cin encroachment permit frorn Caltrans. Ca ltrans subrnitted its co1nn10nt letter dcited June 13, 20 16 to the IJFIR (~ee uttachme11t to the Hi:xa eo n Letter). Pursu<1 nt to Ca ltrans' Encroachment' Permits Manual, in 6 APPLICAf\lT RESPONSE:: LE 'J"f ER order for Caltr<rns to approve the off-site improvement along Los G<ltos-Saratoe<i Road, LP Acquisitions must apply for an encroachment permit frorn Cnltrans. Once the Project is approved by the Town Cot1ncil, the Prnjcr.I will ~ubmit ;rn encroachment permit application with the design plans and specifications to Caltr<ms for its review. In its review of the applir.;ition, C<iltrans will work with the applicant and Town staff to review and finnlizc the design plans. After Caltrnns approves the design plnns. Cnltn:iru; will issue an encroar.hment permit for the c.onstruction of the offsite Improvements. Town Coundl Comment: Prepare a brief ex plcination of how the tra nsport<.1tio n anci cirni lation and parking issues were previously fNrtlunted irt the EIR for the project, the 83,000 sf revised plan, and the rtl<im:ed ~ca,f) c:rltcrnatlve and the 74,260 sf project would not result In new significMt impacts. Applicant Response: Hexagon prepared several t ec hn ical letters acld r esslng the Project's traffic impacts and the irnpacts of the 83,000 square foot buildings reflected in the Second Redesign . Hexa~on '.s letter to the Town was peer revised by the Town's traffic consulta11t and determined to be adequate. further, since the 74,260 sqltare foot Third Redesign is co11slstent with tlrn Reduced Scale Alternative evalm1ted in the EIR, the Third Redesign would not result in any additional traffic imµacts compared to those previously evaluated for the Project. Town Council Comment: Prcivide technical in formation as necessary to address the geotechnical aspects or a smaller building footprint and parking garage and how this was addressed in the F.IR and subs eq uent peer reviewed geotechnical reports. Applicant Response -ENGEO prevlously prepared 1.m extensiv~ design -level Geotechnic.Cll Eva luation for the Project, which was peer-reviewed by AMF.C: Foster Wheeler. ENGEO's responst! letter to the peer r eview r.om111ents w:~s accepted by the Town and was used l>y the Town's EIR consultant to support the analysis in the Town's EIR. The EIR evaluated the geotechnical issues for the proposed Project, and the reduced scale alternative. Subsequ~ntly, EN GEO provided responses to ptiblic commen ts as a prtrt of LP's Supplemental Response s Le tter dated as of Mny 91 201"1 with regard to the 83,000 square foot rev ised plan. ENGEO's comments were peer-reviewed by ~\MEC, and AMEC concurred with ENC:iEO '.s supplemental response letter to the public comments and affirmed the feasibility of the project from a geologic: and geotechnirn1 standpoint. Pursuant to its Supplemental Response dated November 1., 2017 which is attached to this leltei·, F.NGEO has reviewed the reduced ·14 ,260 squar~ fnnt proposed Project, the revised below··grade parking, anci the overall reduced footprint. Bc1sec J on such reductions, f:NGEO has conr.Juded that thl:! revisions are expected to further reduce the already neglir,ible µotential impacts to surrounding properties. The geoted111ic:al nspec:t~ of the Pro ject have been thorough ly ;:issess~d and t h e 11roposed ch anges do not result i n any new signif icant impacts, and su pport t he ana lysis contained in t h e EIR . Additional Fowler Comment Letter: Hequest fo r complete informatkin c:i bout water table on the 405 f\lbe rto Way site and more borillgs. 7 /.\PPUCAl\ll IH::SPDl\l.:.E !.fl I l::N /\ppl ki:'lnt Re:;1>onse ·· Ple,)se see UH~ <rtt<Khed ~NGEO l\Jovemb er 6, 20.l / Hespo1H l:! to Pu bl ic Corn rnents. As p r eviou sly sta ted t he design gmuml w <t te1 l evel of J 2 fee l· b~1 l ow existi ng grL1de is reco1rt 1r11:rndl!d in l hc µro j e cl g eo te c.lm ica l re port, which wa s pee r-revi<:~we d by AM EC Foster Whoe le r a~ w ~ll as the ne ighbor's en g in ee ring represen tative, Ge is<;le r Eng i nGe rin g w ho co ncu r r ed with iJ1(;~ reco m men d ed design groundw ater level of 12 fc!fft be low <:!Xi stin g en1cl e. We~ ciµfH'eci<rte th e Town's co11sid0rntion of our thil d revi sed proµosfil C1nrl l ook forward to the Planning Con1rnlssion's ac:tln11 rl':grirding ow· Proj~c:I at its Decembe1 J.3, 21J17 m t:ctiirg. · Si11ccrc ly, '. Shrine Arters Principal & COO cc.: Handy Lamh Dan Kirby .Jolie l-lou.ston Alicia Guerrn GilrY Black Ollie Zhou Uri Eliahu Bob B oe ch~ -L· J.lACQJJ l SITIONS _ RF.AL f.')T1\l"E DfVFLOPMF.l'IT Revised Project Construction "Export" Details for 405 Alberto Way Updated cmd Revised November 3, 201'1 Based on !he origim1l de~ign ,quhmittcd to the Town on July 13, 2016, this proj;;cf rcqui.rt~<I ~1 total of 69,700 cubic yards of t;t1t; lhu s, resulting i11 6,970 truck trip~ m 8 wc.:eks of off lwul. Thl'n we resubmilled to the T own on Marc.It i 7, 2017 urn l lhc wvistd redesign r eq uired a totnl of 5\451 L'Ubic yards of' t:ut; thus, ret>ulli11g in approximately 4,859 to .5,:M5 lnH.~k trips or 5.5 to 6 w~eks of off haul. With tht~ proposed new redesign (lf this 1>rojcct, this project wi II now rt:quire a total nf' 50,671 cuhic yards of cut and l!lL~struction slagiJ1g can occur (Hl sit~. Ont; large dump !ruck ca11 1;arry I 0 cubil: yard1; or 11 cubic: yards (with a small dh1per !miler); therdiire; 4,606 t<.1 5,067 truck trips would b<.: gcnernl~d. Bused on constrncti1)n ind~1.stry standards, 200 ln:Hls a day would la kc 23 work <lays plus a few mnrt'l diiys for the potential (1f slmv prnductiuu. Therefore. il is rcm:onublc to ~xpe<.:t thut the tohlf export uf 50,(i71 l·ubk yards would take:: 23~26 wo1·k days, M-F or4 .6 to 5.2 weeks. Jhit1 results in an_11_dgjti.m1al l'L•dnclion of-1...Y!s.:ek of offh~1!!.L St:t: utlaclt~d haul routes. In ct1ndusi~111, our prnpo scd size of 1hc structure ha~ 1ww bel!n reduced to 74,260 sf and tlw be low grack: parking garage l 1<1s al1io been r~~d uccd tno. The re<lt~signcd project is ltlso rcforr1;d lo as the Em's Reduced Scale Alternati ve. We estimate th at l:on.~truction expo11/o li"Jwul to bt: approximately 5 weeks, do wn ti-0 111 8 weeks. 'l3S Miclclldicld l~O (ld, $1Ji lP. ·1 ~·D. Mrnln r.-,r k, rA 9402!; I n50.32n.'l l'OO .r. .~ ~· ,• r:.• , .,.. 041 T;' c, ... '"~· ~ll\1Cl~I ,:_ .. , ·~--~··;::, ~·; l f .l AC Q!) ! S I ~l . ! () N S _l,; . f~El\I . FSTATI. UE VHOf'MFNT Revised Project Const ructi on Details fo r 40.S Al be rto W ay lJ pdated and Revised November :~, 2.01 7 Genc:qil Constrrn:liun Tim~line: ,, Project construction wi!I ocrur in a sing le plwse with construttitu1 co111111~11clne in surnrnPr :mm. t1 All construction stap,ine to oc:r.ur on sit•~- • The constri1cl1011 tirneframe is 14 to J.6 1nonl:hs including all phases from the start of demolition to the completion of all site work . e Strict Safety measures will bP. implemented (i.e . minimum ot 2 flag men posl t iorit:d on Alberto Way during grarli11p, and crmstrni:tirrn, .-incl weekly Conumm ity MeP.t i ng~ open t·1J ;ill residents) will ensure rnpicJ i11gress/egress uf f;)rnergem.y ve hicles on Al bP.1to Way and open eornmunication of nil Construction processes to resi de nts. !ill.Q.~.r.a di llli: " The project will require excavcitlc.111 ;ind shoring tn tu:;cununlldate a 2.-i;to ry 111ulergro11 11 d µ<irking strur.ture. .. See atlrid1ed export detilil.~ find route map of dump-truck tr<lve l. u Thf' General Co11tractor will Implement Du st Control Measures which meet the Town standards. • Estirnated ti me line fo r excavation, grading and sh oring is 2.75 111(1 nths . Underground Ga rage Construction: ., This phase will include dieelne footings, preparing the p<1cl , i11 sta lli 11e dr<i inrige ;i nd undergrounding, and waterprciofing. • This phase will also include. installation of refJar and structural ma te r i<ils to acr.ornrnodate tile concrete floors ancl sides of the parki ng str ucture. • The top of the µMking structure will be the foundation of the b uilding. " Our General Co11tr'1ctor will work c.losely with our Structural, Civil and Geoterhnical engineer~ to incorporate the highe:;t con~tructinn standard.5 to rneet bui lding co de<;. e Esti1n<1terl limeline f-ur this phase is 4 rnonths . .(:_Ql~.&..~hell Uuilding Construction: • This phase will indude str u ctural, floor ing, sk in a ncJ roof. ~ 1\ll connect ions to publ ic utilities . .. Estimated tirneline for this ph\Jsr. is G to 7 .25 n1011ths. ~)!~JNr;>rk: " On -site finished hardscape, concrete sidewalk~ a11d pa vin g. • l.'1ndse<1pe including all trees and plants. ~ Outside n1eeting area arbors ancl dog p<1rk . ~ [stiinated timelini: is 1 to 2 month;,. Off~!e Wqr_k_; • Thi s work wil l be clone dud11g the Cor~ & Shell work no tP.d above . • Estimated tinieli1w for cornplr:•liun i~ co11cnrrent with Core&. She ll. _{:Q!1lJ.>k.tiQ.!LO f Cons tn.g; ti on .. This project is estimated to be completecl by late Fa ll 201.9 . Jun 1 3 2 0 16 ~ii 25Pt1 llP LA6ERJE::T FflX DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DlSTR(Ci4 P.O. BOX l16tiO • OAKLAND. CA ~4 62 3·06~0 PHOt-ra (SIO) 286 ·5528 FAX (510) 216-5559 TTY 711 www.dot.co.a"" lune 13, 2016 p . 1 S~tlous Drovgllt. Ht/p ra1-r 1ra1rt! SCLVAR063 SCL/Y AR/PM VAR SCH# 2015 12204 1 Ms . Jennifer Armer Community Developmeot Department Town o( Los Gatos 1 J 0 B. Main, Street Los Oatos, CA 9503 0 Dear Ms . Armer: 401·409 Alberto Way Omec. Development Project -Draft Environmental lmpacl Report Thank you fo~ ~ontinuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Callnns) in the environmental review process for the above-Nferenc~ project. Calt:rans' uew mission, vision, and goals signal a modernization of our approach to California's State T'ta11sport&tion Network (STN), in which we seek to reduce statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and increase non-auto modes of active 1ransportation . Cal trans plans to increase non-auto mode shares by 2020 through tripling bicycle, and doublini both pcde6trian and transit . Also, these tergcts support the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), wh ich promotes the increase of non-auto mode shares b y ten percentage points and 11 decrease in nutomobile VMT per capita by ten percent. Our comments are based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Please also refer to the previous comment letters on this project and i11co1porated herein . Project Un<lerstnniilll The proposed project is located immediateJy ~djacent to the northbound on-ramp from State Route (SR) 9/Los Gatos Saratoga Road to SR 17 in .the northeast quruirant of the interchange . It would demolh~h the existing 9'.l,500 square-foot (st) general office complex and replace it wlth a 93,500 sf geoeraJ offlcc complex. Access to the project site would be provided vi11 two driveways located on Alberto Way. Ulld A.gCllCJ' . As the fend agency, the Town of Los Oatos (Town) is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to State highways . The project's fair share contribution , financing , s1:heduling, implc:ment11tiou resporu1ibi lities and lead agency monitori11g should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures . "/'ro\lrlt! o ~fr. •11J1oh1~bk. u1lelfdl1 d anti l,//iei•nl lrtu11Por1olio11 11)'srcn1 I<> t11ll11Jtct C'11flf,rnl~ 't c;ontmlJ • and. llwlbH11y• Jun l3 ?016 3:2~PM HP LASER~l f. I Fn:.< t ?. Ms. Jennifer Armer/Town of Los Gatos June U, 2016 Page2 Tra/fit' Impacts 1. This cl~vdopment will add tl'ips greater tlmi one percent of capacity on southbound SR 17 during AM end PM peak hours, so will significantly itnpact the STN and require mitigation. For example, the northbound (NB) SR 17/Saratoga. Los Gatos Road diagonal on-ramp and the southbound (SB) SR 17/Saratoga Los Gatos Road loop on·ramp ha\•e existing ramp metering equipment installed nnd are to be further metered in the future with metering rates typically between 240 and 900 vehicles per hour, These additional trips will significantly impact the capo.cities of these ramps. 2. A dosed cir<)uil televisioa (CCTV) comera, ramp metering, and other traffic monitoring rue installed in the area of the Saratoga Los Gatos Road (SR 9) on-ramp to NB SR 1'7. The proposed development has the potenti1tl to impuct these instp.llations, particularly the conduit which runs to the service connections at Alberto Way. Please refer to the As-Built plans for EA t 50264, 151364, and other relevant EAs and field verify loc:ations of the installations Bnd connections, as existing conditions may have changed (e.g., r11e rec~nt Bridge Rail Replacement Project, EA 1A3404). Vehicle 'frip Redlfcfion Caltrans encourages the City to locate future housing.jobs, and cmployeerrelated seniices near major mass transit centers v.ith connecting streets cnnfiguted to facilitate walking and biking. This would promote mass transit use thereby reducing regional VMT and traffic impacts. 1. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs should be docum.mted with annual nlonitoring .report!i by rm onsite 'IDM coordiuator to demonstrate effectiveness. Suggested TDM strategies include working with the Santa Clara Valley Transponation Authority (VT A) to decrease headway times and improve wayrfinding on bus lini::s to provide a better coMection between the project and reg1onal destinations and providing: • Secured bicycle storage: facilities . ., Fix·it bic;•cle. repair Rlation(s). a Bic)'cles for employee uses to nccess local resources. ,,. Amrmilics, ncl1tias and colmections, incorporate wide sidewelkN io Showers, cbengiug rooms end clothiug lockers. • 10 percent vehiclt: parking reduction. .. Carpool and ckan-f\1cl parking &pacci;. ,,. Tn:msporta.tion 11nd c;ommute information kiosk. • Outdoor patlos, outdoor areas, furniture, pedestrian pathwtlys, picnic and rccreo.lionel a(eas. • Nearby walknble amenities. ,. Membership in i'I transportation ma.nagc1nent association. • Kick-off commuter event at full occup!tncy. .. Employee transportation coordinator. • Tran~it subsidies and/or transit passes to all ~mployees. * Emergency Ride Home program. 'Pw•·ilk "sq_liz. JJ••l<tll'U61• lnfoJfhlf~d Plld ~(/i•i•••I ll"tlTJSf'•'IU//(Jll .<)''""' ro e"hanc~ Cali/ornlo) t~o;romy anii IM'rlhlftr;;• · J un 13 ?.OI S ~:25PM I-IP Ul ~t'RJET F A X Ms. Jennifer AnnerlTown of l.os Gato s J\Hle JJ, 2016 Psge3 ~ l 'ransit and trip planning resources. ·• Carpool llhd wnpool ride·matcbing support . • Bicycle route mappini re.sources and .JncentMze bicycle parking, t1nbut1dlin& of ;esidential parkir'.g, llnd provid ing transit pa >ses and/o~ transit subsidies 10 rei;idcnts. These sma.it growth approaches are consistent with the MTC's Regional Transp(lrtation Plan/SCS goals and wou ld meet Caltrans Strategic Management Plan. p .3 Z. The pxojcct will i.nc;rease pedeitrian demand and proposes to reconstrnct the curb ramps 11nd sidewalks, as well as stripe a new crosswalk, at the eastbound Sarutoga Los Gatos Road to the NB SR 17 on·ramp. Caltrans recommends the new crosswalk consist ofhigh·viaibility, IaddeMtylc markings. The project developer should also coordinate with Caltrans a11d the Town to provide a rectangular rapid flash ing beacon at this location. in order to increase motorist awareness of pedestTians crossing the roadway. 3 . The prQject proposes to provide 395 parking spaces, althouglt a development of this scale and scope is required to provide 372 spaces according ro the Tovm's municipal code. In order to discourage driving, lhereby reducing VMf and impacts to the STN, we recommend that the proj~ct consider a reduction in parking supply. R.cdticing parking supply can encourage alternate forms of t(a.t1Sportation, reduce regional VMT, and lessen future traffic impacts on SR 17, SR:9, and the STN. Please refer to "Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth," a MTC study funded hy Coltrans, for sample parking ratios and strategies that support compact growth. Traffic /ntpact Fees Oi\·en the project'!! contributio11 to area traffic and its proximl1y to SR l 7 and SR 9, the project should contribute fair shan: traffic impact fees to the planned SR 17 ramp metering , future auxiliary lanes, and other improvements to SR 17 and SR 9 to mitigate these impac1s. These contributions would be used to lessen future traffic congestion and improve transit in the project vici11ity. Vol1mtarj' Co1ttrl6utlon Program We encourage the City to partici1>atc h1 the VTA 's voluntary c:o21tribution program and plan for 1l1e impact of future srowth on the regional transportation system. For ex11.mple, VTA is interested in studying the SR 17 corridor and securing funding for the study. Contributions by the City funding regional trenepartetion prognu-ns would improve the transportation system by reducing conge~tion and improving mobility on major roadwf.lys throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Traffic Contl'ol P/a,, Since it is anticipated that vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic will be impacted during the con5truction of the proposed project requiring traffic restrictions and de lours. a Caltrans- approved Traffic Control Plan (TCP) is required to nvoi.d projoct-i:eJated impacts to !he STN . The TCP tDust also comply with the requirements of corres ponding jurisdictions. In addition, pedestrian access through the construction zone mu st be in acco1-dancc: with the Americans with ·h~11dt• a '~~-. J•mol~o611. lllUJNll1uJ o•tl tfflcl4nt lr"'1Sp«Wl<Jn Jy11~m lo t11lt!t•cc Colf/oi.,,;,, '1 te<N1 0111r •11d /11a/Jlill)•• Jun 13 2016 3 1 25 PM HP LflSERJET F nx Ms. Jenniter Anner/Town ofl.os Gatos June 13, 2016 Page 4 r . "I Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations (see Caltran.s' Temporary Pedestrian Facilities Hfl11dhook for maintaining pedestrian access and meeting ADA requirements during construction at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/conlltruc/safety/Tcmporary __ Pedesb:ian_Facilities_Handbook.pdf) (.see also Caltrans' Traffic Operations Policy Directive 11-01 "Accommodating Bicycli:ils in Temporary Traffic Cvnuol Zones" at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/t:raffops/policy/l l -Ol.pdf). All curb ramps and pedestrian facilities located within the limits of the project are requhed to be brought up to current ADA standards as part of this project. For further TCP assistance, please contact th.e Cflltrans District 4 Office of Traffic Managem<'mt OperationR at (510) 286-4579. Further traffic management information is available t.t the following website: ww\v.dot.ca .gov/hq /traffops.'tnifmgmt/lmp __ Jcsiindex .htm. E11croacl1me11t Permit Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the Sta.le right·of-way (ROW} requirei; an encroachment permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW must be submitted to: David Solloday, District Officl." Chief. Office of Permits, California Depal1ment of Transportation, District 4, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorpore.ted into the construction plans prior to the encroachment peon.it process. See this website for more information: www.dot .ca.guvA1q/traffops/developserv/pennits. Should you have any questions regarding thi s letter, please contact Brian Ashurst at (510) 286· 5505 or brian.ashmst@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, PATRICIA MAURICE District Branch Chief Local Development -Intergovernmental Review c: Scott Morgan, State Cle11ringhouse Robert Swierk, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) •electronic copy Robert Cunningham, Santa. Clara Val tey Transportation Authority (VT A} -dec tronic copy .. P.-o,•/(/(' a 1q/"~. JJ(.rlqfr,o/lfr!. t11HR'"1'd fJ1:/ f}/tti1,,1 ''t:.1111-u;dvtitm >ysr~m 111 "'~"''" Ca/(/~rnfP 4-t(OllOl>iJ' and /1v•blllo-" ~------ SELECTED HEFH'lENCES 1. AMEC; Peer F~~wiaw Geotech11ical Fxploration l~cpo1 t ; 401 A lberto W a y, Lu~ c:ia tos , Ce:ilifortii[1; Novrnntwr 4, 2015. AMF:C Project No. OOH449Hl60. 2. AMEC Fuster Wheeli:)r: Geotech11ical Peer F:eview; 1f0·1·-409 Aliu~1tn Wiw, L.m: Gatos, Crilifornia; April ~~8. 201 '7. AMF.C ProjF.ict No. 084491960. 3. EN GEO; (·1eulf~ch11ic;al Exploration; 40·1 Alber lo W<ty, l.os Gr.~tus, Californirt; .Ju ly '17, ;~o I !i (Revis!:!d A11~1ur.1 ·13, 20'15). ENGli:O Flroject No. ·12·175.000.000. '1. r::NGEO; l~e:spo11se to AMEC FostP.r Wheeler Pee:r r~e11iew Commentr;; 401 Al berto Way, Los G~tn!-i, C:;1liforni::1 ; .J::inumy ·1 ·1, :W'l6. E.NGEO Prnj;:n:t l'Jo ·f 2 "1'75 .000.0110. b. ENGECJ; Supplemental Response 10 Pub lic: Cornme11ts; 40"1-409 Alberto Way, L os Gatos , Gatifoniir.1; Apri l HJ, 20·17'. ENCEO Project No. 12'175.000.000. SUUJECT TO ATTOJ~NEY Dlf'~EG 1101\J ···Al I OHNEY \IVOl{K I 'l'WLllJC: I ·12 ·175 .000 .000 November 2, 2CJ'l'i SELECTED REF~l~EN(;ES ·1. AMEC; Pear F~eview -· GEwtac:tmli;al Exploration R'~port; t:.o·r Alborlu Way, Im: Gatm~. Californir~; Nnvembor 4, 2015. AMF.:C Project No. 008440HJnO, 2. AME:C r:oster Wlleelor; <:;<:lo led mica! F>(~r 1~£wiew; tJQ·l-409 AlbEH lo Way. Lo~ Gatos, California; April 28, 20'17. AMEC r:1 rojc~ct Nn. 08,l49191'i0. 3. EN GEO; Geoted 1nir~il l::>cplrn-c1rion; 40·1 AlbArlo Wny, Los Gc:1tos, G~ililornla; July 'Ii', ~OH'> (Hevisetl A11gusl 1~'.. 2n·1s). ENGEO Pr(ljact Nl1. ·12175.000.000. 'i·. EN GEO: Re~iponsa to AMEC FosturWheeler Peer Review Comments; 4(1'1 Alberto Way, f.ot~ C~<1tos, California; Jtmuary 1 'I, 20'16. ENGSO Project No. 12175.000.000. 5. ENGEO; Supplemental Hesponse to Puhlic Comments; 40·f-40!·J A lbc-)rlo WAy, Lo!\ Galo~~. California; April HJ, 2U1'T. Ef\JGEO Project Nc.1. ·12175.000.000. 6 . Geissler Eni;,Jineering; Hydrolo"y Report; 401-40B /\lberto Way, Lo~ t.iEllos, CE1fifomia 1 95032; clcitad Mf.trr.::h 31. 2017. mJB.IECT -rr) i\TTOr~NEV DIHl'C:Tl()N ·-Ar'l'C!HMf!Y WOl~I·: PHODUC:Y 12 ·1 ro.OOU .OOO NtJVf~mbt:r 6, 20 ·17 /-\VIS ON YOUNG lnteHlgent Real F.~ti'lte Solutions December27, 2017 Mr. Randy Lamb Lamb Partners 535 Middlefield Road, Suite 190 Menlo Park, CA 94025 RE: Planned Los Gatos Office Building Dear Randy: 2600 Stevens Cre~f: Ooulcv11rd Suit11200 San Jose, CA 95128 USA T 408.377.4300 F 4011.913.6913 :ivisonymmg.cotn Thank you for the chance to write this letter to you with my opinion of cu r rent floor plate sizes for new Class A Office buildings in Silicon Valley. I have leased and/or sold over 3 million square feet of new Class A office space in Silicon Valley over the past 5 years and understand what today's High Tech tenants are looking for in these new buildi ngs. Today's newly constructed Office buildings have 35,000 to 40,000 sf per floor, which is desirable to tech companies because there is much more useable open space than the floor plate sizes of the past (15,000 to 20,000 sf). The problem with the smaller floor plates are the lack of larger open areas because of the buildings core in the middle. The core would include elevators , elevator lobby's, restrooms, stair wells, and utility closets, which then would only leave you w ith approx. 8,000 to 10,000 sf of useable space Jn a donut shape. Today's larger plates allow for everything to be in the core and then have large open bay depths for cubicles and interior offices and conference rooms up against the core leaving the window line open to everyone. If you looked at all of the newly developed Class A office product, you will find that 95% or high er have these larger floor plates (35,000 to 40,000 sf) because they are much more functional & efficient and allow today's tech company to provide a collaborative, open environment for their employees . Please let me know if you have any questions and am always avai l able to help in any way . Thank you, Gregg von Thaden Principal & Managing Partner Avison Young (408) 913-6901 direct Gregg.vonthaden@avisonyoung.com 450 West Santa Clara Street San Jose. CA 951 13 www colliers com January 2, 2018 Mr. Randy Lamb ~""' .. , 408 282 3800 FM +1 408 292 81 00 535 Middlefield Roa d, Suite 190 Menlo Park, CA, 94025 RE : Planned Oflice Building in Los Galos Dear Randy: Co1lier s IN7UH1 Ar 1 or1A~ You have asked me lo provide a lc\\cr with my professional opinion regarding floor plate s izes of Class A Oflicc buildings in Silicon Valley. Floor plate size varies depending i f you arc in an urban selling vs. a city setting. One thing for sure is over the past ten plus years a ll lloor plates regardless irthcy arc urban or city have been getting larger and larger. All-new construction I have witnessed in the Silicon Va lley as of la\e has tried to maximi ze their floor plates given the cost of land as well the loss factor of the building infrastructure (restrooms , elevators, common area and 'stairs). The smaller floor pl ates (25,000- 30,000 sq . ft.) become very inefficient given the loss factor of the earlier mentio n infrastructure . Tenants to day arc pa ss ing o n the smaller floor p late sizes. Today, t he ideal floor plates arc ranging from 35,000 sq. ft. up lo 42,0 00 sq. fl. and sometimes higher. A larger floor plate a llows for an efficient layout of s pace for employees, cubicles, conference r ooms and op en collaboration. We h ave become more efficient over the years in t.hc use of office space. Today tec h companies want collaboration areas and open environment and the smaller il oor plates (25,000-30,000 sq. ft.) cannot provi de th e use a nd will be passed over for the larger noor plates (35,000-40, 000 sq . ft.). Please le t me know if you m:ed a dditional information, I am happy lo assist. Thank you, Justin M . Reilly Sr. Vice Pres ident Colliers Interna tiona l Justin.Reilly(ti>Colliers.com ' '...' ... ,, ••• A The CAT ("Community Area Transit") Shuttle Service Information Sheet • Proposed Operation Hours: M-F from 10 :30am to 3:3 0pm; and for a few special events in Los Gatos each year Free public shuttle for everyone-available for Neighbors, Residents, Tenants and Visitors Reduces Traffic and alleviates the stress of finding limited parking in downtown • Ride for free, shop in Town, avoid parking and support the local merchants See Shuttle Stops Map for pickup and drop-off locations This supports the General Plan's Sustainability program to have "fewer vehicle miles traveledn Shuttle service is a standard form of TOM and is often used as a mitigation measure to further reduce trip generation This Page Intentionally Left Blank