Attachment 06C y,//dϮϰ
Materials presented at the Planning Commission Hearing on December 13, 2017, by Harold Vitale,
during public comment, and provided for Commission review at the request of a commissioner.
s
a
r
I
l
G
R
d
s
a
r
I
L
G
R
d
0
0A
0
0
0
Fo
0
000000000
000000000
000000000 c
o V
0
0
0
0
0
D <o 8
0 0
0 v
0
0 v
o L
E 0000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000
o v
0
0
0
0
0
FW17
0 0
0 0
00
00
0 o"
o of
< <
Alberto Way
Figure 1
000000000
000000000
000000000 c
oV
0
0
0
0
D <O
OOOOOOtOOOOOOOOO 8
<
0
0 v
o L
E 0000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000
Ov
0
0
0
0
0
~<
Alberto Way
<
Figure 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0000 000000000
0 0 0
0000 00000 0
0000 000000000
ooo A
0
0 Distance ft
A-B 1082
C-B 250
B-0 93
D-E 93
A-L 500
0000 000000000
0 0 0
0000 00000 0
0000 000000000
0
0
oA
Distance ft
A-B 1082
C-B 250
B-0 93
0-E 93
A-L SQO
Atoe 38Sto
# cars Wait Secs
100 412
200 712
Sar/LG
Walt Mins
6.9
11.75
Bek A LGC to LG/Sar Rd 151 Secs
North
Bek A LGC to LG/Sar Rd 84 Secs
South·
'·
Submitte~ }}:,'I the Los Gatos Commons Committee on Alberto Way Development: Marilyn Basham,#P
Loretta i:O~rer, Marietta R~ and the Los Gatos Commons Board of Directors, President Jean Farro'f'"
JQnes
December 13, 2017
The Los Gatos Commons Response to LP's "Third Redesign" (Nov. 7,
2017)
OVERVIEW
Town Council's Decision Is Misrepresented
Architectural Changes Inadequate to Address Several of Our Concerns
Two Story Underground Garage Puts Neighboring Properties at Risk
Positive Changes
What the Residents Support
I
ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES INADEQUATE TO ADDRESS
SEVERAL OF OUR CONCERNS
A Reduction of 8,740 Sq. Ft. still results in a massive scale
not compatible with neighboring structures
The three buildings of the commercial development across the street (nos. 53, 55, 57)
total 31,891 sq. ft. The proposed 74,260 project is more than twice the size of this
commercial development. Las tasitas (435) is 26,054 sq. ft., about one-third the size of
the proposed project. Pueblo de Los Gatos (430) at SS,190 sq. ft. is divided into two wings
and sits vertically on the site. The Commons is a large development w ith ten buildings.
The two facing the street are each about 10,000 sq. ft. Screened off from our view are
475 and 485-two buildings vertically placed, each 28,000. (see attached illustration)
The 315 foot fa~ade is not broken into segments similar to
neighboring structures
It is a massive building with a fa~de that appears flat and monotonous. The residential
structures on Atberto Way have dynamic facades with multiple popouts and projections
that face the street at different angles.
3
The Building setback of 30 feet more than in the
Second Redesign on the north property line does not
preserve the existing public views of the Santa Cruz
Mountains from the north corridor (see attached
111 ustration)
The proposed building has completely blocked the south view corridor of ridges
and a peak-which we have enjoyed for many years.
The proposed building blocks most of our north corridor view. This north view
has always been prized by us--lt is calming and restorative. From the west
sidewalk you see hillsides, ridges, and a peak.
We walk this street regularly-many of us every day-for doctor-ordered
therapy, daily exercise, dog walking, trips to buy a newspaper at the corner,
lunch at the lodge, and trips to town. The mountain views have always been an
important part of this experience.
If you look at the existing story poles on the north corridor, you can see that the
view corridor is obstructed by the proposed building and we lose ridge lines and
the peak. The farther you walk southward from the north property line, the
more of the view is lost.
The proposed building is inconsistent with COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINE
1.4: maintain sense of place with views of surrounding hills preserved
l o
!
1 i,
...
...
• !,:
:I
-· .. ...
Retention of Two Level Underground Garage threatens
Neighboring Properties
We have no confidence in ENGEO's Assessment of Risk
ENGEO ignored General Plan policy (SAF 1.11)
Require geologic and geotechnical reports to specify construction
methods to protect existing residences in the vicinity from identified
hazards
Dr. Peter Geissler reviewed ENGEO's work: likely risk to
neighboring properties
ENGEO's Defense: admits "low risk"; refused to consider Geissler
recommendations
AMEC Foster Miller did not objectively consider the issue of risk
to neighbors. Their letter ignores the points made by Dr. Geissler,
rather than objectively examining them.
I ~
Palo Alto recognizes risk of dewatering : Guidelines for
Dewatering During Below Ground Garage Construction, May 2017
Conduct a Geotechnical Study to determine the radius of
influence (i.e. extent of cone of depression) from each
dewatering well as a function of time, based on local soil and
groundwater conditions. All wells and other dewatering sites
within a 400-foot radius (roughtly one City block) of the
property that may interact with dewatering activity shall be
included in the study.
No two-level underground garages on flood plain in Los Gatos-no
precedent established. We do not think there is a one-level
underground on the flood plain, either.
Property Damage would be catastrophic for Alberto Way residents
WE ASK YOU NOT TO APPROVE A TWO-LEVEL GARAGE. ONE-LEVEL WOULD BE
MORE ACCEPTABLE TO US.
\ (.,
WHAT THE RESIDENTS SUPPORT
The motion by Commissioner Erekson on August 24, 2016: the developer shall
make a significant reduction in size and scale, resituate the building away from
the residents [to the north] •.•.
IN THE DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER EREKSON SUGGESTED A
REDUCTION OF BETWEEN 41% {TO 55,000 SQ. FT.) AND 31% {TO
63,000 SQ. FT.)
The Alternative "Reduced Size" mentioned in the DEIR (74,260) was
not considered acceptable. {Transcript, pp. 119·20)
We residents argued that a reduction of more than 41% would be
appropriate for our street but the motion did not support our
preference. We asked ourselves:
How can this project be built within the Commission's guidelines and
yet address residents' concerns to a significant degree?
/5
OUR SUGGESTION:
BUILDING OR BUILDINGS THAT HAVE A SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE
RANGE PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON AUGUST 24
(55,000-62,000)
ONE STORY UNDERGROUND GARAGE
SETBACK OF 80 FEET FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE TO PRESERVE
OUR EXISTING PUBLIC VIEW OF THE SANTA CRUZ MOUNTAINS
Here is an example of how such a project could be realized (see illustration attached):
SEE ATTACHED ILLUSTRATION
Two buildings (each about 28,000 sq . ft.) placed vertically. The design echos the
Pueblo de Los Gatos and Alberto Oaks (475 and 485) developments and, thus,
blends better with the neighborhood structures.
The 90 ft~-wlde ends of the two buildings allow for a fa~ade that is more
interesting and similar to the neighboring structures.
A one-level garage is appropriate to a 56,000 sq. ft. project, and there would be
ample space for surface parking.
A setback of 80 feet from the north property line protects our EXISTING public
view of the Santa Cruz Mountains (the view CORRIDOR there now)
Traffic Issues
Nega t ive Impact of 298 vehicles entering/exiting Alberto Way
Delays due to driveway congestion near intersection
Driveways from the commercial center at 53, 55, 57; from the
proposed project; from Pueblo de Los Gatos and Las Casitas
converge ,
TRA 2.5 Should restrict development along single access roads
Alberto Way is a narrow dead-end street. This makes problems of
traffic entering and exiting more difficult to deal with.
Problems with Hexagon study
Did not factor in 100 cars from 475/485. The 100 +cars will enter
and leave at about the same time as cars from 405 .
Use of statistical averaging does not reflect lived experience
ITE Manual: data too old; editors admit significant difference
between pre-and post-2000 data (see attached page p. 12 from
manual)
AND This proposed building is much larger than the current largest two-
story office building south of Lark: 750 University (62,750 sq. ft.) on a
wide, busy street (35 mph) and not adjacent to or across from residential
structures.
Please consider the advisability of further limiting the number of cars
exiting/entering Alberto Way.
. .
\
\
\
\
\ .
\
\
.
~ l
:
I
~----t
I
.I.Ts\__ _L
~ ---I
' ~
I
I
!
0 0
.... t
may differ from the post-energy crisis data. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) analyzed
the database from the third edition ( 1982) of Trip Generation and stated, "Based on statistical tests
such as T-tests and F-ratios, it was concluded that there were no significant differences between
the mean trip rates of older data (pre-1973) and new data (post-1973) for all land uses analyzed.~5
ITE staff performed additional analyses comparing pre· and post-1980 data for the restaurant land
uses (931, 932, 933) for the February 1995 Update to the Fifth Edition. Again it was found that there
were no significant differences between the mean trip rates of the older data and the newer data and
that all data points were retained in the database to· maximize the sample sizes of the given land
uses. Prior to the release of the eighth edition of Trip Generation, ITE examined the data that were
contained in the banking land use---Drive-in Bank (912}-to determine if changes in travel patterns
resultfng from recent technological advances in the banking Industry had a significant impact on
the trip genera.tion rates. This analysis concluded that pre-and post-2000 trip generation data
were significanUy different. As a result, all data from the years prior to the year 2000 were removed
from the database for the two banking land uses-Walk-in Bank (911) and Drive-in Bank (912). It
is anticipated that additional I ses ill be erformed fi uture u dat s to continue monitoring
variations based on the age o the data.
Variations in the Staiistics
Variations in trip generation characteristics for specific land uses are reflected in the range of rates,
standard deviation and coefficient of determination (R2) value. (See Chapter 5, ·"Description of Data
Plots and Reported Statistics," for additional details on these topics.) These variations may be due
to a small sample size, individual marketing of the site, economic conditions of the business market,
geographic location of the sites studied, or unique characteristics of the specific site. Accordingly,
judgment must be exercised in the use of the statistics in this manual.
Other sources of variation include different lengths of traffic count duration and the time of year the
traffic volumes were counted; that is, daily and seasonal variations may exist for some land uses .
Studies have not been undertaken to· analyze differences based on geographic location.
Limitations of the Data Plots
The plots presented in Trip Generation cover only the range of independent variables for which data
are available. Caution should be used if extrapolating the data beyond the ranges provided because no
information has been supplied to document trip generation characteristics beyond the given ranges.
It should also be noted that in some cases, because of tJie limited sample size and variation in
the data received, the projected trip generation estimate for the peak hour of. the adjacent street
traffic exceeds the trip generation estimate for the peak hour of the generator. By definition, this is
impossible . In these isolated cases, knowledge of the project site and engineering judgment should
be used to select the appropriate trip generation approximation.
s Kelleroo. Devel~pment and Application of Trip Generation Rates. Washington, DC, USA: U.S . Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1985.
Tfip Generation , 9th Edition o Institute ofTransportation Engineers
, I
Senior Concerns
Half the residents on Alberto Way are seniors (170: Commons, 133; others, 37)
Over 3/4 Commons residents are 70 and over: 1over100; 7 in their 90s; 47
in their 80s; 45 in their 70s; others in 60s
Commons units $524 per sq. ft.-below market cf to Los Gatos, $781 (2017)
General Plan goals regarding seniors
Town focus: senior needs (INT-6)
Vision statement: offer high quality of life to all residents, including seniors, and
meet the changing needs of senior populations (VIS-3)
Seniors greatly influence the character and sense of place on Albe.rto Way
CEQUA policy: Sec. 15131. Social effects may be used to
determine the significance of physical changes caused by a
project. So, if construction affects a particular community negatively,
construction is physical change but the SOCIAL EFFECT-on the community would
be the basis for determining that the effect would be significant.
Traffic: consider "sensitive receptors" (TRA 3.12)
Delays. are likely and could negatively affect medical transport
More traffic makes walking more dangerous : most seniors regularly walk
south up Alberto Way
The View: restorative, restful for seniors: blockage of existing view of
Santa Cruz Mountains from north corridor would be a negative
Impact for seniors (and others)
Additional Comments from Jean Farron Jones, President of Los
Gatos Commons
Petitions with three principles (ress than 62,000 sq. ft. building; one-level
underground garage, protection of existing public view of the mountains from
the west sidewalk) got signatures of majority of residents at The Commons and
Pueblo de Los Gatos
Petition with these same three principles got support from all the members of
the Boards of Directors at The Commons, Pueblo de Los Gatos, Las Casitas.
We residents get no benefit from this proposed development-only LOSS .
Loss of views, quality of life, ability to come and go from Alberto Way when we
want
The suggestion that the proposed building and a shuttle would help businesses
downtown is not supported by any objective analysis or feasibility study.
None of the residents support this Redesign 3: any support is coming from
people who do not live on Alberto Way, and especially from developers and
their employees or family members
This is a commercial building but Commercial Design
Guidelines still apply and many General Plan policies do
also
Commercial Design Guidelines
1.3 Protect property owner investments by discouraging inappropriate
adjacent development
1.4 Sensitive Interface of commercial development with adjacent
residential neighborhoods;
maintain sense of place with views of surrounding hills preserved;
scale and character appropriate to the setting
1.5.1 Break fa~ade segments into modules sympathetic to the smaller
scale of nearby residences
Inconsistencies with General Plan
INT-1 Land Use decisions encompass not only zoning , but circulation, design#
open space, and other factors.
LU p. 15 projects developed under the mixed use designation SHALL maintain
the small town residential scale and natural environment of adjacent residential
neighborhoods ...
LU 1.8 Commercial development of any type SHALL be designed in keeping with
small town character of Los Gatos
LUG Goal: preserve and enhance the existing character and sense of place in
residential neighborhoods
LU 6.1 Protect existing residential areas from impacts of non-residential
development
LU 6.2 allow non-residential activity in residential areas only when the character
and quality of the neighborhood can be maintained
LU 6.5 Type, density, and intensity of new land use Shall be consistent with that
of immediate neighborhood
LU 6.8 New construction Shall be compatible and blend with the existing
neighborhood
We ask you to direct the developer to reduce the building size to Jess than
62,000 sq. ft. (we hope for 56,000), build a one-level garage, and use a setback
of 80 feet on the north property line to protect our existing view.
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To: Jennifer Armer
Kalane McDonald <kalaneella@gmail.com>
Friday, December 15, 2017 11:36 AM
Jennifer Armer
405 Alberto Way project
Please forward this message to all members of the Planning Commission.
I attended the Planning Commission meeting on Dec. 13, 2017, as I have all previous meetings regarding this project.
After sitting through an extremely long meeting, the following is a summary of the take-away points that I gleaned from
listening to speakers in favor and against:
* .300 additional cars on a single access street
* 100 cars entering and exiting Alberto Way to/from Alberto Oaks, 475 and 485 Alberto Way
* increased traffic congestion on Hwy. 9 between Hwy. 17 and Los Gatos Blvd.
* . the only other two story office building of similar size at 750 University is located on a
busy thoroughfare surrounded by commercial buildings
* disputed testimony by experts on the effects of constructing a two level underground
garage, with potential negative impacts on residents
*.a large, massive building that does not fit in with residential neighborhood and
architecture
* destruction of the view of the mountains for residents
*.a shuttle service that will not be useful to residents of Alberto Way and which is only a
carrot to entice the Planning Commission to accept the plan
• . the claim by the applicant that only a 74,260 sq. ft. building meets Class A office space
*.the claim by the applicant that only a 74,260 sq . ft. building is economically feasible
* . this project will bring in money to the coffers of Los Gatos
* the Chamber of Commerce is in favor
The conclusion: this project does not fit in with the neighborhood and is too large for the size of the lot, and will bring
with it many headaches regarding increased traffic. An examination of the Town Plan for Los Gatos proves that this
project should be rejected.
Sincerely,
Kalane McDonald
443 Alberto Way
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To :
Subject:
Hi Jennifer,
Gordon, Barry < Bgordon@Structint.com>
Saturday, December 23, 2017 6:24 PM
Jennifer Armer
Our Support for the Alberto Way Project
I am the President of the Los Gatos Bicycle Racing Club that was established here in 1960. We were founded
by the late Daves Avenue teacher, Bob Tezlaff, a 1960 US Olympian and member of the Bicycle Hall of
Fame. Our club will be celebrating the 45th Cat's Hill Classic bike race on April 28, 2018 in the Almond District
of Los Gatos.
We have devoted considerable time to the Town of Los Gatos as an Ambassador of the Los Gatos Chamber of
Commerce while also supporting several local charitable organizations such as the Los Gatos Education
Foundation (LGEF), the Community Against Substance Abuse (CASA) and the Los Gatos High School Band.
Our club, which is also a 501 C3 charity, fully support the proposed construction proje~t at the intersection of
Albert Way and Highway 9 . We believe that the proposed project will serve the best interests of the community
and that Lamb Partners have sincerely addressed all the concerns of the local community.
Therefore, we urge the Los Gatos Planning Commission to approve this wonderful addition to our community.
Thank you for your consideration and Happy Holidays.
Sincerely,
Barry Gordon, President
Los Gatos Bicycle Racing Club, Inc.
A four-time USA Cycling Club of the Year
A 501 C3 Charity
www.lgbrc.org
408-821-6014
bgordon@structint.com
-
Oivi ;on C.---.-
)· U$A.CVCLING
cwa OF THE! Yl!Aft
Electronic Privacy Notice: The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended
solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and
attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any
printout. Thank you for your cooperation.
To : Planning Commission
From: Loretta Fowler
Date: December 23, 2017
Sitting in the hearing on December 13, I heard arguments that the proposed
project will promote increased revenue for town businesses. I do not think that
idea should be accepted uncritically. So please consider the following.
WILL THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 405 ALBERTO WAY BRING NEW BUSINESS TO
DOWNTOWN LOS GATOS?
The Chamber of Commerce surveyed 50 people (SO respondents out of 399
contacted). According to this survey most (67%) thought that the new office
would bring new revenue to downtown businesses. Fifty-eight percent thought a
shuttle service to downtown would b_enefit their business.
HOW MUCH CONFIDENCE CAN WE HAVE IN THIS SURVEY?
This is an OPINION survey. There has been no feasibility study or any
objective study of the effect of the proposed office building. There has been no
study of the buying habits or lunchtime activity of the 100 plus tenants at 475 and
485 Alberto Way (a 56,000 sq. ft. office complex). Do we know if Netflix has
brought new business to Los Gatos?
Mr. Lamb collaborated on the survey with Catherine Somers of the
Chamber of Commerce (see Town Council hearing, 9/19/17, 3:43:04). There are
three questions on the survey, all leading, and the description of the proposed
project was all positive and, in actuality, misleading (e.g., the proposed office
complies with the General Plan).
Despite the bias inherent in the questionnaire, in the comments section
where respondents could express concerns, 33 responded. Twenty-one
expressed reservations: 16 about the increase in traffic and 4 about the huge size
of the building.
COULD NEW CUSTOMERS FROM AMONG THE TENANTS AT 405 ALBERTO WAY (IF
THERE ARE ANY) BRING NEW REVENUE?
Two members of the Commons committee spoke to Chamber of Commerce
employees and learned that the main causes of the decline in business are
increased traffic, online shopping, and competition from Campbell restaurants
and bars. The proposed building would not alleviate any of these problems.
WILL THE PROPOSED SHUTTLE BRING CUSTOMERS from the 405 project to
downtown?
Employees would sit on a bus for up to 20 minutes or more to get
downtown, wait for service in a restaurant or shop, then get back on the bus for
another 20 minutes or more. And there would be walking time to get from one of
the stops to the target business. Is it likely employers would welcome this much
time away from the office?
The developer says the shuttle will run five days a week from 10:30 AM to
3:30 PM and will be available to neighbors on Alberto Way. More than half the
Alberto Way residents leave for work before 10:30. At this time of day, retirees
who want to go to Safeway or Walgreens go up to the intersection and turn right
and drive or walk to University, turn north and go one block, and turn left into the
Safeway parking. This takes from 5 to 10 minutes. Why sit on ·a bus for three
times that long riding through town? By the way, the DEVELOPER NEVER ASKED
THE RESIDENTS OF ALBERTO WAY IF THEY WOULD LIKE A SH UTILE at 405.
Moreover, people already downtown, who might get on the bus, have already
driven there and parked.
I do not believe the shuttle was mentioned before the Planning
Commission rejected the proposed project on May 10. The developer offered the
shuttle (and mailed a misleading brochure about the popularity of the project all
over town) just at the time his appeal went before the Town Council.
We asked one of the TOWN COUNCIL members if the proposed shuttle
could be used to convince the Council to approve the project. The answer was:
''THIS IS A LAND USE ISSUE" and the SHUTTLE "IS NOT RELEVANT.''
I hope that the proposed Redesign 3 will be considered on its own merits.
The idea that the developer is going to help downtown businesses is wishful
thinking.
Sincerely yours,
Loretta Fowler
451 Alberto Way #247
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc :
Subject:
>
>Dec. 26, 2017
> Ms . Jennifer Armer
>Community Dev. Dept.
M. Claire Ferguson <m.claireferguson@yahoo.com >
Tuesday, December 26, 2017 11:52 AM
Jennifer Armer
m.cla ireferguson@yahoo.com
405 Alberto Way project
> 110 E. MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CA.
>This is to provide important input into the second Jan. 10 Planning Commission consideration of the 405 Alberto Way
project, since Town Council questions on this project in Oct. have been sent back to the Commission.
>Originally the Planning Commission had requested the development proposal square footage be reduced by one-third,
and the merit of that judgement has increased with additional project information. Most importantly, the proposed
underground garage next to a creek with a high water table should be no more than one level, since a two-level garage
was deem~d a risk to structural foundations of nearby residences by a civil engineering expert. Even the method of
addressing risk from constructing a one-level garage below the water table has not been presented by the developer, so
there is still an open question of managing this technical uncertainty. A one-level garage is consistent with square
footage reduction originally requested by the Commission and supported by residents on Alberto Way who are
significantly impacted by the increase in traffic.
>We realize there are local business interests, and a one-level garage design allows more than double the office space
over the existing building it will replace, and would be double the size of the commercial hotel building across the street.
>As residents, we strongly believe this project size should be the maximum allowed by the City from a safety and health
perspective which is key to the quality of life in the t:ommunity.
>SINCERELY,
>Claire Ferguson/Manya Lane
Jean Farren Jones
443 Alberto Way, Unit B 218
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner
Los Gatos Planning Commissioners
Los Gatos Town Hall
11 o E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
December 27, 2017
At your hearing on December 13, 2017 there was a discussion about the bus the Lamb
Company, the developer of the project at 401-409 Alberta Way stated they would provide to the
town. I don't see any benefit to the town from the bus. With the current traffic problems in the
town the employees in the proposed building will not have time to take the bus to local shops
and restaurants, make a purchase, shop, eat or whatever they plan to do then take a bus back
to their work in an hours time. The same is true for the town residents and high school
students. The time it will take to make the proposed loop with only one bus will make the trip
difficult or impossible.
I spoke to the office manager of the Chamber of Commerce, she indicated that the employees
of the new office building will not improve the downturn in business for the local merchants.
On-line shopping, increased Los Gatos traffic and the fact many Los Gatos residents are
going to Campbell for shopping and dining are the main causes of decreased business.
Sincerely,
·~~r
an Farren Jones
resident
Los Gatos Commons HOA
Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner
Jean Farren Jones
443 Alberto Way, Unit 8218
Los Gatos, CA 95032
To Los Gatos Planning Commissioners
Los Gatos Town Hall
11 O E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
December 27, 2017
At the Planning Commission hearing on December 13, 2017 I was disappointed that 401-409
Alberto Way was second on the agenda . However, some of the information from the Topping
Way hearing was helpful to learn,
1 . The opinions of the neighboring residents was taken into consideration by the
commissioners.
2 . The largest bu ilding in a neighborhood can be considered MASSIVE.
I hope these points will also pertain to the proposed office space at 401-409 Alberto Way.
In my opinion and that of many of my neighbors, the proposed building at 401-409 Alberto Way
is MASSIVE and does not fit on on that lot. A building of not more than 56,000 sq. ft. would be
much more appropriate
Thank you for your time end consideration.
Sincerely
Jean Farren Jones
President ,
Los Gatos Commons HOA
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To :
Subject:
To whom it may concern :
Jean-Mar c F. Blanchard <jeanmarcf.blanchard@gmail.com>
Wednesday, December 27, 2017 9:11 AM
Jennifer A r mer
Comments on Revised Alberto Way project
i. I am writing to comment on the revised plans for the Alberto Way deveiopment.
II. I think the developers for Alberto Way have made progress, but I still feel the project is too large and will have a
negative effect on the "Look & Feel" of the area and a very negative effect on the already overloaded stretch of road
between Los Gatos Blvd. and Santa Cruz Ave .
Ill. I am glad the developers are considering a shuttle but rather than put MORE veh icles on the road why don't they
make improvements that would facilitate biking and walking to downtown and access i ng public transportation. The
stretch of road from Alberto Way to Santa Cruz Ave ., especially around the access/exit areas from 17, is very
bicyclist/pedestrian unfriendly and will get worse with more vehicles.
IV. Many building in Singapore are designed with plants embedded in the structures (not just around them). This has 3
benefits: (1) helps clean the air; (2) breaks up large blocks of concrete/brick; and (3) adds to the scenery rather than
takes away from it. The Alberto Way buildings should do something similar.
V. Thank you for your time and consideration .
Jean-Marc F. Blanchard
[information below should _not_ be put in public record]
113 Creekside Village Drive, LG 95032
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Debbie <dcsacksl@comcast.net>
Monday, January 01, 2018 10:09 AM
Jennifer Armer
Alberto Way Project
I would like to add my voice to those who urge the town to scale down the project at Alberto Way. There is already so much
traffic congestion around that highway interchange. Please consider reducing the size of the buidling (and corresponding
number of ca r s) for this project.
Thank you .
Sincerely,
Debbie Sacks
18400 Overlook Road Unit 31
Los Gatos, CA 95030
To: Town of Los Gatos Jennifer T. Armer, ACIP
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
110 E Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030
Emaill: Armer@LosGatosCA.gov
From: Harold Vitale, 415 Alberto Way Los Gatos CA 95032
Email: hsvitale@earthlinknet
Date: January 2, 2018
Dear Jennifer,
Introduction:
A traffic analysis to determine the flow of cars from the proposed 405 project and
the parking facility at 485 is included. This study is for traffic flowing out of these
two facilities. The situation analyzed could likely occur in the late afternoon hours
as office workers leave their facilities. It is intended to illustrate the wait time for
cars leaving the facilities to entering Saratoga LG Road.
Results:
Results are given in Figures 3 to 6. Attached and based on the traffic map shown in
Figure 1. The detailed Analysis is given in Appendix 1,
Conclusions:
Wait times up to 400secs for 1 OS cars would be very frustrating which shed
quantitative support for the concern of congested traffic.
Ffpre2.S
A·Merge-E
C·B
A-E
~Merge-E
I Note 1
Cme11e-E
LGCBack
Walt Time
Watt ·nme
Ffpre :t
Period#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Figures
Period#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
I Walt
Note 1
Is
Alley
for
for
A-Merpto E
CumPTime
34
68
102
136
170
204
238
X72
306
340
374
408
442
476
510
544
578
612
646
680
AtoB
Cum PTlme
34
68
102
136
170
204
238
272
306
340
374
408
442
476
510
544
578
612
646
680
Time Examples I
10Sth Car WaltTimels Sum of CumPTime & 1st AtoE time
68th Car WaitTimels sum of CumPTlme & bt CtoB time
68th Car Wait Time ls Sum of CumPTlme & 1st AtoE time
105th car WaitTimels Sum of CumPTime & 1st AtoE time
A-merge-E less 1st C-B Time I
Wait Times for single car[ Note -watt Times
LG north At A -A-Me!Je-E See Fig3 409.6
LG south At I. -B·Merge-E See Fig6 371.1
Green li&ht lstc:.rtime Figure4 CtoB
30.7
XCarsXSecs Wait time Period# CumPTime
9.605 69.6 1 34
19.209 103.6 2 68
28.814 137.6 3 102
38.418 171.6 4 136
48.023 205.6 5 170
57.627 239.6 6 204
67.232 273.6 7 238
76.836 307.6 8 272
86.441 341.6 9 306
96.045 375.6 10 340
,105-.&50 409.6 11 3.74
115.254 443.6 12 408
124.859 477.6 13 442
134.463 511.6 14 476
144.068 545.6 15 510
153.672 579.6 16 544
163.277 613.6 17 578
172.881 647.6 18 612
182.486 681.6 19 646
192.090 715.6 20 680
Green Ughtl 1st car time FllU1'116 A-merptoE Green lllht
I 30.7sec
XCns X Secs Walt time Period# cum Plime XCarsXSecs
6.204 64.7 1 34 9 .605
12.408 98.7 2 68 19.209
18 .612 1327 3 102 28.814
24.816 166.7 4 136 38.418
31.02 200.7 5 170 48.023
37.224 234.7 6 204 57.627
43.428 268.7 7 238 67.232
49.632 302.7 8 272 76.836
55.836 336.7 9 306 86.441
62 .04 370.7 10 340 96 .045
68.244 .404.7 11 374 ·· 105.650
74.448 438.7 12 408 115 .254
80.652 472.7 13 442 124.859
86.856 506.7 14 476 134.463
93.06 540.7 15 510 144.068
99.264 574.7 16 544 153 .672
105.468 608.7 17 578 163.277
111.672 642.7 18 612 172.881
117.876 676.7 19 646 182.486
124.08 710.7 20 680 192.090
Wait Time Figure
409.6 Fig3
417.4 Fig4
404.7 FigS
371.l Fig6
GreenliJht 1st air t ime
38.SRC
XCarsXSecs Waitllme
6 .204 72.5
12.408 106.5
18.612 140.5
24.816 174.5
31.02 208.5
37.224 242.5
43.428 276.5
49.632 310.5
55.836 344.5
62.04 378.5
68.244 412.5
74.448 446.5
80.652 480.5
86.856 514.S
93 .06 548.S
99.264 582.5
105.468 616.5
111.672 650.5
117.876 684.5
124.08 718.5
MerptoE WaitAMrgtoE
30.7 less38.S
Wait time CMereeToE
69.6 3L1
103.6 65.1
137.6 99.1
171.6 133.1
205 .6 167.1
239.6 201.1
273 .6 235.1
307.6 269.1
341.6 303.1
375.6 337.l
409.6 371.l
443 .6 405.1
477.6 439.1
511.6 473.1
545.6 507.1
579.6 54Ll
613.6 575.1
647.6 609.1
681.6 643.1
715.6 6n.1
s
a
r
I
l
G
R
d
s
a
r
I
L
G
R
d
0
0A
0
0
0
Fo
000000000 405 Park Gar
000000000
000000000 c
O V
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 v
0
0 v
o <o B o L
E 0000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000
< < <
Alberto Way
0
0
0
o v
0
0
0
0
0
Point B Stop/Merge/Go
Figure 1 Traffic Paths
000000000
000000000
FW17 000000000 c
0 0 ov
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 o" 0 0
o oF <O 0 v
oooooocooooooooo B o L
E 0000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000
<< <
Alberto Way
0
0
0
0
0
0000 000000000
0 0 485 Park Lot
,oooo 00000 0
0000 000000000
000 A
0
0 Distance ft
A-B 1082
C-B 250
B-E 186
A-L 500
0000 000000000
0 0 0
0000 00000 0
0000 000000000
0 "
0
0
Distance ft
A-B 1082
C-B 250
B-D 93
D-E 93
A-L 500 ov
0
0
0
0
0 Figure 2 Considered Not Evaluated
Appendix 1: Analysis
Traffic Conditions on Alberto Way.
Traffic Flow Leaving:
332 Vehicle Trips, 405 Garage to Alberto Way
250 Vehicle Trips, 485 Parking Lot to Alberto Way
Merge 405 with 485 Traffic at intersection of 405 In/Out Driveway & Alberto Way
Right Turn Lane for Alberto way Vehicles to enter Saratoga/LG Road
Traffic Regulations
SMPH (7.33 ft/Sec) within facility property.
25MPH (36.67 ft/sec) on Alberto Way
35MPH (51.33ft/sec) on Saratoga L/G Rd
Traffic Signal at Alberto & Saratoga/LG Rd:
17Sec Red. 17Sec Green, 3Sec Yellow, 8 Sec Walk
Travel Distances
1082 Ft: (485 Parking) to (405 driveway intersection) at Alberto
250 Ft: (405 Garage) to (405 driveway intersection) at Alberto
185 Ft: ( 405 driveway intersect at Alberto) to Intersection of (Sar /LG Rd)& Alberto
177 Ft: (Right Turn Lane Length)
Definitions:
The travel time for vehicles from the 485 parking lot and from the 405 Garages to
Saratoga Road are dependent on the following:
Vehicle Starts and or Stops ,Traffic Signalers, Stop Signs, Alternate Vehicles Signs.
Speed limits
Tstart: Start times, from stopped to speed limit velocity
Tstop: Stop times, from speed limit velocity to stopped
a: Delay time between moving vehicles or gap time
Tr: Time to travel distance L at speed limit velocity V.
A: Starting point at 485 Alberto
B: Location of 405 Alberto intersection with Alberto
C: Location where proposed right hand turn lane begins
D: Location of Stop (cross-walk-markin) at Alberto & Saratoga Rd
Vup: Velocity after start time
Vdn; Ve locity at beginning of stop time
Tfill : Time to move car n+ 1 =a.
NuVeh: Numbe r of c ars bumper to bumper in distance D
DltaTmst: time to move one car length at velocity V
Assumptions:
The Traffic signal at the intersection of Alberto Way and Saratoga Los Gatos Rd is:
17Secs Greeen, !7 Secs Red for traffic leaving Alberto way. Source of this
information is the current Traffic Impact Executive Summary Study for this project.
CarLesngth; Average car length=15feet
Vehicle Start time is a linear function of time i.e.
V(t)= V*(t/Tstart) for t=>O and t=<Tstart & is V fort=> Tstart
Vehicle Stop time is a linear function of time i.e .
V(t)= V-V*ft/Tstop) for t=O and t=<Tstop &. is 0 for t= .. Tstop
A-B: 1082 Ft: (485 Parking) to (405 driveway intersection) atAlberto
C-B : 250 Ft: ( 405 Garage) to ( 405 driveway intersection) at Alberto
B-D 185 Ft: ( 405 driveway intersect at Alberto) to Intersect of (Sar /LG Rd)&
Alberto ·
0-E 177 Ft: (RightTurn Lane Length)
N: number of cars stopped bumper to bumper in distance 1052 i.e.
N=1052/15=70.13car
Analysis:
Starting distance is D(t)start=lntegral (V /(Tstart))*t)=(V /Tstart)*(t"2)/2
Stopping distance is D(t)stop=lntegral (V-(V /Tstop)*t)=
=V*t-(V /Tstop)*(t"2)/2)
Tfill=(Average Carlength)/V
DltaTrnst Time=(CarLength/V)sec
Distance ft
A-B 1082
C-B 250
B-E 186
Vup f/s
36.7
7.3
36.7
Transit sec Delay sec Start sec Stop sec
Distance ft
A-B 1082
C-B 250
B-E 186
28.3 1.7
34.3 1.7
5.07 1.7
NuVeh cars 1 car length sec
70.1 0 .41
16.7 1 .86
12.3 0.41
Delay Time for A to B Carl at 25MPH(37.6ft/s:
Time for CarlAtoB=Tstart+ Transit+ Tstop+ Tfill=
=1+28.3+ 1+0.4=30.7Secs
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
Tfill sec
0.40
2.05
0.40
Cars from B then merge with Cars from C at Point B. See Derivation of
Tdelay /Merge at Point B
Delay Time for c to B Carl at 5 MPH(7.3ft/sec):
Time for CarlCtoB =Tstart+ Transit+ Tstop+ Tfill
= 1+34.3+1+2.05=38.35
T
Cars from C then merge with Cars from A at Point B. See Derivation of
Tdelay /Merge at Point B
Delay Time for B to E Cart at 25 MPH(37.6ft/sec):
Time for Carl BtoE =Tstart+ Transit+ Tstop+ Tfill =
=1+5.0+1+0.40=9.73sec
Merged cars then traveled to E. See Derivation of Tdelay
Derivation of Tdelay /Merg:
There is a stop sign at this intersection for cars C to B. Assume that cars from A also
stop at the intersection to allow the stopped car from C to turn right The cars
alternately stop and start in order to merge, a Courtesy Traffic Regulator.
The delay at B as cars from A merge with cars from C is as follows:
Right Turn Traffic delay at SMPH;
This time delay is calculated from the total travel distance ofCarC from start up to
being in position to accelerate to 25MPH.
Note: Start up length=(8.3*Tstart/2)= 8.3/2=4.15ft, Total path length,..,, lOft,
10-4.15=5.BSft. time to go 5.85f at 8.3f/sec=0.7sec. The delay therefore is 1Sec +
.70Sec+l.7Sec
Right turn travel time=1. 7sec. (at SMPH)
Acceleration from SMPH to 25MPH: CarC
Following the right turn delay of 1.7Sec CarC accelerates from SMPH to 25 .MPH
(Obeying speed limits). By inspection this transition time is 0.8Sec.
Total delay for Car C from start at the intersection to reaching 25MPH is therefore
1. 7Sec+0.8Sec.
Time for Turn + Tansition= 2.SSec. Care
CarA continues at 25MPH
Intersection Crossing ,Traffic Delay at 2SMPH: CarA
Note Start up length=Tstart=36.7*Tstart/2=18.35fbut Path length =20ft.
Total distance across intersection is zoa 20ft-18.35=1.65~ 1.65ft/37.6=0.04sec,
Intersection Crossing Time =1.04sec
Impact of Stopping/Starting/Interleaving of cars at the Junction at Point 8
Let time TO be when Care and Car A are each stopped at intersection B.
The sequence of merged cars starting at TO is:
CarCl starts and reaches Point Bin 1.70secs then accelerates from SMPH to 25Mph
in O.Ssec. CarC2 starts again in 1.7Secs+l.04Secs
CarAl waits 1.70secs, starts and reaches Point B in 1.04secs & continues at 25MPH
These two cars and following cars are merged traveling at 25MPH with 1.04sec and
1.7sec delay between each other. Carel lags Car Al. CarAl continues at 25mPH.
CarC2 is further delayed by 0.8Sec, the speed transition time.
•
Car Flow Rates
One Ccar leaves point B every 2. 7 4Secs/Ccar
One Acar leaves Point B every 2.74Secs/Acar ·
Merged, there will be 2 cars leaving the merged point every 2.74secs/2 cars. We can
rewrite this as: (1.7 sec/2)+(1.04Sec/2)=(0.85sec/Ccar+0.52Sec/Acar).
Interpret this as: Car A leaads CarC by 0.52sec & CarC is delayed from CarA by
0 .. 8Ssec .. As described, each Ccar is delayed further t.o 0.8sec+ 0.85sec sec=1.65Sec
but both cars are then traveling at 25MPH .
Following the merge time, Ccar experience an additive delay of 0.8ecs & Care trails
CarA byl.65sec
Time for the nth car from C to B
Wait time for fi rst car from C to B=TCB1=38.35.
Wait time fo r second car C to B=(TCB1)+2.74
Wait time for third car C to B = (TCBl )+ 2. 7 4+ 2. 7 4
I Time for mth car A to B = TAB1+(m-1)*2.74
Delay times for Merged Ccars & Acars
As given above merged delay times between cars is (0.52sec/Acar1)+1.65/Bcar1.
Delaytime for tst 2 cars=TBD+2.17
Delay time for znd 2 cars=TBD+Z.17+2.17
Delay time for 3rd 2 cars=TBD+2.17+2.17+2.17
I Delay time for 2pth car=TBD+2.17*p
The difference in the rise time of 0 to 25MPH and the rise time from SMPH to
25MP H at identical slew rate s. This delay will be added to the delay of e ach Care
delay time. The timing delay times s e que nce is as follows:
CarA leads Care by 0.52 s ec.
Total Time for mth car A to B =TAB1 +(m-1)*2.74.
Time for the cars from C to D After Merge start of Speed Transition
Wait time for first car from C to B=TBDl+ spee d increase im=(32.3+0.8)sec=33.1sec
Wait time fo r second car A to C=TBD1 +0.8secs =TCBl +3.54
Wait time fo r thir d car C to B = TCBl +3.54+3.54sec
Traffic Signaler Regulation: A traffic light cyle is 34Sec. The Red Signal Light
stops the flow of cars fort 7 Secs. When the signal turns Green the next cars advance
until the Red light tur ns on again. In one period of 34 Secs.
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Jennifer-
Judith Stark <judystark@me.com >
Tuesday, January 02, 2018 8:14 PM
Jennifer Armer
Stark Dennis
Alberto Way Project
I'm writing in reference to the proposed office building at the corner of Alberto Way and Highway
9 . My husband and I own a condo in Los Gatos Commons and feel strongly that the proposed
complex is very ill-suited for the neighborhood. Besides the traffic congestion and other traffic-
related problems, we have other concerns: 1-The disruption, noise, and dirt caused by the
construction project itself, 2 -The underground parking (2 stories), and 3 -Alberto Way has very
dense residential housing so a large number of people will be impacted by the problems inherent in
this project, not the least of which is the obstruction of views,
If the goal is to make the buildings earthquake-proof, check out the office buildings at the very end of
Alberto Way . I worked in those buildings in the mid-90's when they were deemed not earthquake-
proof; they were retrofitted with metal braces on the outside that not only satisfied the requirements
related to quakes but also blend in quite harmoniously with the building. No need to tear everything
down -just upgrade the existing buildings!
Judy Stark
January 3, 2018
To: Planning Commission
From: Los Gatos Commons Committee on Alberto Way Development and the
Board of Directors
We write to refute the idea that the proposed building at 405 Alberto Way
has to be at least 74,260 sq. ft. to attract tenants.
DESCREPANCY BETWEEN ORIGINAL AND RE-CENT .PROPOSALS
In the DEIR (2. 7) we read that the developer plans two buildings to house "a
variety of professional office uses similar to the use of the existing buildings on
the site" [three buildings, about 10,000 sq. ft. each]. At this time the developer
proposed two buildings, one 45,000 sq. ft. and the other, 47,800 sq. ft. (both with
floor plates of about 23,000 sq. ft.). The developer's plan was for Class A office
space: defined as "larger floor plates," operational functionality, energy
efficiency, and employee amenities (DEIR 2.2).
WHAT IS A "CLASS A" OFFICE BUILDING AND MUST IT BE AT LEAST 74,000 Sq. Ft.?
The definition provided by Catherine Somers of the Chamber of Commerce at the
10/17/17 Town Council hearing on the 15,860-94 Winchester project (2:04:44)
was "the newest and highest quality buildings in the market. They are generally
the best looking buildings with the best construction and possess the highest
quality building infrastructure. Class A buildings are also well located and have
good access and are professionally managed. As a result of this, they attract the
highest quality tenants and also command the highest rents." She made no
mention of floor plates.
Research through Google, affirms Ms. Somers's description: Class A buildings are
the most prestigious with rents above average and high quality finishes, state of
the art systems, exceptional accessibility, and especially outstanding amenities for
tenants [such as copy services, food, daycare, fitness center, dry cleaners]
Why could not the developer build a 56,000 or 62,000 sq. ft. building so state-of-
the-art, so beautiful, with so many high-end amenities for tenants that he could
charge a very high rent? With only a oi'l"e-level garage he would save millions ' in·
construction costs . Why couldn't this be economically feasible? We "neighbors"
do not want any "amenity space" or dog park. All the developments on Alberto
way .nave adequate public space (as .you-ean s-ee from the Google sateUit.e.photo}.
The planned amenity space for "neighbors" could be used for surface parking.
We say again, a building 74,260 sq. ft. is too big for Alberto Way. As we read the
Gene:raf Ptan arn:f Commercial Design GtrideHnes; the proposed project is ··
inconsistent with many town goals and policies regarding land use and protection
of views of the Santa Cruz Mountains. And this size building would bring in way
too .many .cars forlittleAJberto Way. ... Not.only would the :proposedpr.oject.bring
in 300 vehicles to our narrow, single access street but the renovated 475-485
offices bring an additional 100 plus cars (not factored in by the Hexagon study,
which was completed before the renovation). All these cars would create .
excessive delays and safety issues for residents.
WE URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE GENERAL PLAN AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN
GUIDELINES, AS YOU PREVIOUSLY DID, AND DIRECT THE DEVELOPER TO REDUCE
THE SIZE of the building so that a one-level garage will hold the associated cars
and so that our existing north view corridor to the Santa Cruz Mountains is
preserved. Though with heavy hearts, we support your previous consensus that a
building 55,000 to 62,000 sq . ft. is appropriate.
BOARD OF DIRECTQRS, LOS_.§.ATOS,..COMM,P~S
!k~~~--~~~~ ~
COMMITTEE ON ALBERTO WAY DEVELOPMENT, LOS GATOS COMMONS
r'Yk~ I(__~ c~)
~ ~/£,5~ {~d'mj. (. . . -)-~ . . Q ~,F7~~j···"~
~ ---~~~(~-1
Pre>·
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subjed:
Barbara Grimm <imagoint@gma il.com>
Wednesday, January 03, 2018 8:49 AM
Jennifer Armer
Alberto Way
I am a Los Gatos resident of more than 48 years and wish to register my NO vote for the huge construction project that
is proposed for Alberto Wy. The noise and traffic wiil be a nightmare for the residents weli as the congestion aiong the
short distance to enter and exit Hwy 17.
Please consider the residents of this already congested area.
Sincerely
Barbara Grimm
Sent from my iPad
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To the Planning Commission;
Joan K Larson <joanklarson@aol.com >
Thursday, January 04, 2018 12:13 PM
Jennif er Armer
401 -409 Alberto Way
There is no re si dent on Alberto Way that want this large building that will bring such additional traffic. I doubt anyone in
the office complex at the end of the road at 475 wants it to be approved. Only people who think this is a good idea for
Los Gatos are those who do NOT live here on Alberto Way.
Only one that voiced approval (but does not live here) was a Grill 57 person who th inks there would be more customers.
Told by Lamb that the restaurant could use 401-409 surface parking. Hard to do that with the metal fence blocking
entrance . As we were told of use of the picn i c tables and dog walk. Wouldn't that be the tenant, not the developer, to
permit that condition ..
The Geissler Hydrology Report needs to be reviewed . The residents are affected .
There is no other dwelling in Los Gatos with a two floor underground garage .
T here is no dwelling on Alberto Way with an underground garage.
There is no dwelling on Alberto Way the size of the proposed building.
There is no ingress/egress than ONE on Alberto Way. A dead end road.
There will much less ground cover to absorb rain water with the cement and asphalt for the surface parking and
driveways. The excess water will run to its lowest spot on Alberto Way and will likely cause floodi ng in my patio and
condo. And elsewhere. Which is a definite concern.
Thank you for attention to this matter.
Joan K. Larson. LG Commons
441 Alberto Way, Unit 114
408-348-6698
Sent from my iPhone
My name is Thomas Dunn and I live at 420 Albertro way.
I understand the need for a new development across the street from my complex
but not at the cost and expense and ware and tear on all the residents on
Albertro Way.
Safety for residents, children and the seniors are a major concern. 2 years of
dump trucks, trucks with building supplies, Large cranes, heavy duty operating
equ ipment, PGE digging up the roads , Cal trans digging up the streets is not only
dangerous to us but makes no sense . (Would you want to live across the street
from this for 2 years or more?
I believe by reducing the size of the building can resolve the majority of the issues
we have about the current proposal.
Here are my concerns
There's no evidence that Los Gatos needs a large class a building
There are numerous small businesses and professionals in town that would love
to have a nice multi -use office at that location . Previous tenants to the property
were attorneys, insurance agents, CPA's, print copy center, financial planners and
more and the property was most of the time full.
No evidence that this building will bring more revenues to downtown merchants .
A lot of the residents on Albertro Way spend mornings, lunchtime, weekends and
our money in town because we live here we like it, and understand the
importance of supporting our local merchants .
The new business model of employees do not have the luxury of long lunches or
shopping breaks to go downtown or the need to support our local merchants.
Most companies now have their own cafeteria or have lunch catered in.
NO NEED FOR A DOG PARK. When I spoke to Shane about this he said that 2
women across the street suggested it. Of the 2 women, one has moved out and
the other is looking to sell and relocate. Use that space for more parking for
employees and no need for 2 level underground parking .
A Bike lane between 2 turn lanes at Albertro way and High_way 9 takes parking
spaces off the street and is ridiculous and very unsafe. There is now twice the risk
of someone getting hurt. This is a dead end street and I see maybe 2 or 3 bikes
per day go up our street. No one from the Albertro Oaks offices rides their bikes,
no one from the Commons is riding bikes up the street and a few children ride on
the side walk up the hill on the safe side of the street.
All it takes is one child or senior or a resident bike riding down Albertro Way and
to get hit or killed during construction or by the new large number of cars leavi ng
this building it senseless . It would cause a law suit against the company and the
town for letting this project even be considered ... SAFTEY FIRST FOR THE LOS
GATOS COMMUNITY.
The definition of a class A building is defined by quality and size of 50,000 sqft
not the 72,000 sqft misrepresented by the developer.
Also there was a 35,000 sqft class A building just built on Winchester so a class A
building can also be less than 50,000 Sqft
So a smaller size class A building should be able to work at this site which takes
less time to demolish and rebuild, preservers the view of the mountains, reduces
the traffic and number of cars and keep Albertro Way safe.
The following is from my first letter to the town on August 15, 2016 on how they
have misrepresented themselves and especially this protect and they continue
to do so today.
I do not trust Randy Lamb or Shane Arters. l do not believe any words that come
out of their mouths. All night at the meeting they would change their story to fit
what they think you might like to hear. There is no integrity or professionalism in
their 2 man company that knows nothing about Los Gatos or the Los Gatos
community. They are out of towners.
-He has inaccurately presented to you at the planning meeting the amount of
office square footage they have built, over 1 million, and the number of offices,
12, but I can only find 3 office buildings they have on their website and one of
them is a drawing of the Albertro way project.
They understated numerous information to residents about the time and
damage it will take to excavate the property, the number of dump trucks it will
take and not to mention the damage it will do to our street and possible the
water pipes etc below the street. He told us 4 weeks and at the meeting he now
says 3 months. He told us around 50 dump trucks and now it is more like 350
dump trucks. This is only one example of the non-truths he tells.
Also the one that really gets me is at the planning meeting on august 10th he
stood up and said that he had held 14 community outreach programs in our
neighborhood and that over 100 people attended and no one was opposed to the
project.
WRONG: Everyone at our meeting and all of the other condos meetings also
adamantly opposed to the project when we saw the sight poles being put up .
One major concern is because of the size and mass and the bulk of the buildings
and it was way way to big to fit into our neighborhood. We made several
suggestions to lower the buildings, reduce the size and all he said was that he has
town approval and has complied with all the requirements and he doesn't care
what the residents think, they're going to build this project anyway.
ALSO NO ONE is in favor of this project for all of the reasons you heard at the
meeting and because of all the concerns in the summary we submitted to you
with over 200 signatures on a petition opposing this project (see Attached
concerns} This is not a safe place to build
His comment to us at our last outreach meeting was he wasn't concerned
because the GRANNIES down street and can't make it this far anyway.
I would like to see a smaller size, 35,000 to 50,000 sqft ,one story, no
underground parking garage, with multi use offices for local business owners and
·businesses from the surrounding towns. No bike lane or dog park needed.
t\11o er·1-o ,, ... ,-;J .lr c1· l1" '7. on . ...., Ft ll""'l-·11 er Tes·t-1• I'"'O l'tf\Y" 1-0 .. ..,. ~ . ·~ ~-\ ,... _,e _ .. ;rs . .,, -~-·-· . -. t .. ---Y -
"' ··EI~ e ·Loe G "'.:'l t-o~ ·pJ .artnir1 P ro1nnn 1· c;:;.,....1·on1J c, 4·01· -l _ ,:) o. ...... .... c .. __ .. .0 ...... .. l ....,;-:, . _ .::J _
409 Alberto \'Vay· JanJJ.ar~r 10} 2 018 I-Iearing
Submitted by Bob Burke individually and for those who signed the Petition
AppHcant's dain1 drnt th~:t ~ is rle~nand for C!ass A cnm1nen::fa.! bllihlings
i~ rw: suppoiAt~d by any evidence of-demauri sutmutte!i te th~ r~ccE"W
Applicant has presented no CEO, Chairman or a Board of Dfrectors from any
prospective large tenant that can afford to occupy the entire building or even half of it
who says they want to locate in Los Gatos and have passed a resolution that they want
to.
All we've seen thus far from this and other Applicants for proposed commercial office
developments is a representative of local Chamber of Commerce to represent the
commercial interests of the small merchant businesses who hope to receive added
income from the presence of new Class A commercial occupants. They present no
evidence of actual demand for Class A, but appeal to the Town that their sales are
down. We know they're down thanks to three factors:
On-line Retail led by Amazon and continued by restaurant delivery services, allowing
Campbell & San Jose competition with local establishments
The traffic congestion caused by increased population in Silicon Valley and
The diversion of beach traffic to Los Gatos Town streets by Waze
Furthermore, the Town of LG has done nothing effective to stop the beach traffic from
entering Los Gatos despite being presented with 10 opportunities by Bob Burke at a
Town Council Meeting last summer
Local business interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of local resident
voters who wish to enjoy the Los Gatos as their home. Commercial offices run up the
cost of Los Gatos traffic infrastructure while they make woefully insufficient contributions
due to the outd~ted traffic study and infrastructure payment computation methods in use
by the Town .
The pursuit of local merchants' commercial interest is not evidence that there is any
demand at all for commercial office space in Los Gatos regardless of building class.
The definition of Class A contains "Newest & nicest" in most sources that can be found .
A,?plkant's daLl! thnt n~ ~uHdh}.g ~ess th2n ::be preaen: 7 1!-K SC! ~t
proposed :tlev~lop:.m~nt !s e~iL>ilcmica!Ry feasib!e ~s not Sll~p;pcrte~ by any
evidence suhrrriiLtcf~ to the Record
Applicant has not presented any evidence to the record to support the assertion and
made the same statement when submitting the two larger proposed developments at
93K and 83K sq ft. A review of planning cases reveals that the economic viability claim
cannot be considered without submission by applicant of proof that it is true.
Furthermore, the Town is not responsible for applicant's failure to assemble
economically viable plans .
Applicant must submit auditable business plans and alternative design studies for
buildings of various permitted uses, finishes and sizes to prove the assertion.
Nci ii!be,rto W'-ly pa!"king spaces propo~ed :::o be remo~/ed shou!d he
approved: rein.oving them m!Dil!'lizes cosi to ap}tHcant iit residents
exuen.3e CJ r <l incoT."tV~nienc~ ..
Lost space s are further away from the residences and proposed replacements are more
convenient for Grill 57 patrons and as overflow for the Best Western Inn at Los Gatos
than for residents.
Applicant should be required to straighten out Alberto Way for the many congestion
control and safety reasons we've already submitted and no parking spaces on Alberto
should be approved for removal.
Geotech's d:ii:m that it has ~ug ·tEnrlerg;-oun.d park:ng wiUt!>U.t I2nd
s ubsidence nn sim!fa:r project s
Geotech and Applicant presented no evidence to the record to support the claims,
locations or geological s imilarities or differences.
G?-Gt:ech f~H eu ta adrl.ress t h e impact: ~hat blockage to the mcvei111e:nt of
undergrounrl water the fa.rge underground pa:-king gar2ge ·wtH present
It is likely to negatively impact nearby res idences within the 0-10 feet to water zone
shown beneath applicant's property and portions or all of every HOA on Alberto Way on
the Santa Clara Valley water District's depth to water map that we submitted . The
i mpact could drive wate r to the surface beneath the crawl space foundations of the
Pueblo de Los Gatos and .the crawl space foundations of Bella Vista Village town
houses in the lower level just to the North of the Pueblo de Los Gatos. Several of the
town houses on Cuesta de Los Gatos had to be retrofitted with sumps to extract near
ground level water.
The backup of water that can no longer flow beneath 401-409 if a two story UG garage
is built can cause disastrous results: more sumps, foundation damage, black mold.
We request that the Planning Commission prevent this risk to our residences by
allowing no more than one underground garage lever and only after new borings are
done by applicant to prove that even 1 level will not damage our residences.
The prcposed shnttle p:resent:s iittie ~:.: na legitimate oppoi"t~n!ty fni' i:se
by anycne.
Tenants of 401-409 Alberto
We've observed the tenants of 475-485 Alberto Way for years. There is a small group of
5-6 who walk to the Lodge for lunch.
The vast majority of tenant employees eat in the office .
Many employees of the property management company located in 475-485 Alberto
report in the office early in the day, leave to work outside and then return to the office for
lunch. Afterward , they leave again in the early afternoon to resume off-premises work.
LGHS students
Freshmen are not allowed to leave campus at any time prior to the last bell during the
first semester http://www.lghs.net/students/schoo l policies/code of conduct/level i i -
administrative intervention and all students need parental permission and same day
school notification to leave any time but lunch:
3
http://www.lghs.net/UserFiles/Servers/Server 87373/lmage/Students/BLOCK%20BELL
%20SCHEDULE.pdf
Second semester freshmen and all other students have short enough lunch periods that
the shuttle cannot be used at all. Most who leave for lunch use cars and go in a group
or walk to the handful of restaurants close enough to be back in time.
After school, students on foot or skateboard are going home. They will have little
opportunity to use the shuttle since its route doesn't get them home or even close
enough to wait for. F~rthermore, they're not going to wait for 15-30 minutes to avoid a
walk that takes less time than the wait+ ride, so applicant's assertion of use by students
should be totally disregarded .
After school, the proposed shuttle can facilitate student drug use, presenting s ignificant
danger to LGHS students. This will accelerate with the legalization
There has been for years an undercover drug intel operation in multiple Silicon Valley
high schools in an attempt to prevent dealing to HS and MS students. Arrests are made
at school. The schools in Los Gatos have been covered by the operation with the goal
to keep the students safe by eliminating distribution in and around the schools. Student
"stoners" have for decades used drugs in an area nicknamed "the wall."
Those who do use but are on foot or skateboard are the most vulnerable students,
principally freshmen & sophomores, who are approached by student dealers. They're
eager for acceptance in their new high school world . Dealers will suddenly have access
to the shuttle for use as an after school "sales & party bus" that they can use to circu late
town until they can avoid detection at home. No shuttles need to stop at schools.
Residents of Alberto Way
Residents will seldom use the shuttle since it is far less convenient than autos for short
in-town trips, an insignificant number of which are destined to stops along its route.
The shuttle is a bad idea used to gain sup.port from local merchants who stand to
gain nothing at the end of the day.
Planning Commission
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: 401-409 Alberto Way Project
Dear Commissioners,
I am a resident of Los Gatos Commons and look
forward to taking in the mountain views as I
walk on my street. While I reviewed the video of
the Dec 13 meeting and again other photos given
to the commission, I was struck at how poorly
they represent the actual blockage of our scenic
views on Alberto Way. The photos submitted by
the developer don't accurately show our lost of
ridgelines and mountains.
The seniors on Alberto Way feel that we wlll be
losing a great deal with proposed project. We
feel that we have comp.romlsed much more then
the developer In the negotiations by agreeing to
a building between 55,000-62,000 sq. ft., one
level garage and just as important the north side
of the project must remain open to the
mountains views. The enclosed photo shows the
lost of our south end view. The other photo
shows the slim side of the peak that remains on
the north end.
We have been honest and diligent In our
research as we try to understand this
development process. We have spent long hours
of study and most of our rainy day funds to hire
experts to guide our understanding. We are
looking for a reasonable size building that the
developer can profit from but one that Is low in
density for a one level garage and protective of
the North side mountain views.
Thank you for all your work on this project
Sincerely
Marilyn Basham,
Resident and business owner in Los Gatos since
1982
Jean Jones, President of Los Gatos Commons
HOA
r1-~
n~~~
~,;,,~ .. -C4w/1
......... <.
"" .) .
·:.
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Planning Commiss ion;
J Scott <gatosbella@gmail.com >
Friday, January 05, 2018 11:00 AM
Jennifer Armer
Alberto Way
Thank you for a continued commitment of making sure Alberto Way project is done right!
Please stay the course and don't let our small town character and charm be robbed by self ·righteous
developers .
Keep this project under 60, 000 sq ft and don't allow the underground parking garage.
Regards,
Jann ette Scott
Alberto Way