Attachment 09LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Tom O’Donnell, Chair
D. Michael Kane, Vice Chair
Mary Badame
Kendra Burch
Melanie Hanssen
Matthew Hudes
Kathryn Janoff
Town Manager:Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney:Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 9
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I think we can move on
to Item 2, which is the Alberto Way matter. On the last
meeting we closed the meeting to public comment. We invited
any written comment, and we have received some written
comment. What we’re going to do this evening is have a
discussion between the members of the Planning Commission
on their thoughts, and I would assume at the end of those
discussions we’ll have a motion.
First, I guess I should say Commissioner Badame,
because of her proximity to the project, is going to recuse
herself and will come back for the next item.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: That is correct. My
residence is located within 500’ of the project
application. I will return.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: We’ll see you hopefully soon. I
will simply ask now for people, whoever wants to start with
the comments, I would imagine we all have some comments, so
who would like to… Well, what we can do, if you don’t mind,
we can go down the line if you like, so I can start with
Commissioner Hudes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. Knew I have a few
comments.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: When did you not?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I wanted to remark on the
information that I requested about the widening of Alberto
Way, and this information was provided, but I was unclear.
We never received a before and after diagram showing how
much. We received some textual information, and in that
information it raised a concern that the widening, which
was represented to be, I think, 3’ approximately eventually
tapers back to the original property line, and the
eventually looked to me the way that the text description
proceeded, that that was referring to the entrance to
Alberto Way, where I have the most concerns about safety.
I know I expressed this in the very first hearing
that we had on the subject, that we have a population that
lives on Alberto Way that occasionally avail themselves to
the use of emergency services and vehicles, and that we
also have a situation where we get gridlock on Highway 9,
and as far as I can see, that gridlock situation was never
studied as part of the traffic analysis. The dates on which
the traffic was observed were not at the times when, at
least as far as I can tell, and there were no words in the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
traffic exhibit about the gridlock traffic that has
occurred there.
So my concern goes beyond convenience with regard
to traffic, it goes to safety and the ability of an
emergency vehicle to turn onto Alberto Way, and I did not
find the information provided by the Applicant entirely
satisfying as to that point in terms of how much wider it
would be and whether emergency vehicles would be able to
make that kind of access, and so those concerns remain for
me.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Thank you. Moving down the
line.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I spent a lot of time over
the last few weeks reading through all of our previous
minutes and watching the tapes and whatnot, and so I was
trying to distill this down to what the essential issues
were, and it seemed like in terms of the comments that we
had made that the main issues relate to four areas at the
moment: size, traffic—and some of these are interrelated—
the geology, the garage, and then the views.
It kind of occurred to me that because we didn’t
approve the A&S in the original hearing decision in Ma, we
didn’t go through the EIR, but I went back and read through
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the EIR, and basically the EIR has found that there are no
impacts in most of these areas that can’t be mitigated.
And so then I was kind of left with there’s also
the issue of we have to think of it in terms of comply with
the General Plan and also with our Commercial Design
Guidelines, so I wonder about how the best way it is to go
about looking at the EIR, because it has so much
interrelationship with the rest of the project, just for
example in terms of size. I thought about it and I was like
well everybody would like it to be smaller, of course, but
there isn’t any standard for size other than the lot
coverage and the height of it.
And then if you’re worried about the size, what
is the impact of size, and to me it would be in terms of
the views and of the traffic, and those are both covered in
the EIR, and you can disagree with the methodology of the
EIR, but I don’t think that’s our jurisdiction. My
recollection is when we’ve had EIRs before what we can
really comment on is whether or not we think the mitigation
is appropriate. So that’s a question I have.
So then I went back to this whole issue of size,
and we’ve had a lot more requests for having objective
standards, and I think Council was looking for us to come
up with a number that related to something, and so at the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
moment the proposal is based on the reduced alternative
that’s in the EIR, and we can decide whatever that number
is.
But I also had a question about how to think
about neighborhood, because clearly the people on Alberto
Way think that this is incompatible with the neighborhood,
but we don’t have a neighborhood analysis standard for
commercial like we do for residential, and so I wondered
about the right way to think about that.
I know in the past we, for example, had the
hearings on the office building on Winchester, and even
though that building is twice as big as the next commercial
building down the street it didn’t factor into the ultimate
decision by Council in terms of whether or not to approve
the project.
And also during the Council hearings on this
particular project the Council in particular asked about
the sizes of the commercial buildings that are there in the
neighborhood on Alberto Way and also across the street, but
they didn’t necessarily give direction that you need to
reduce the size to the next biggest building in the
neighborhood, so another question I have is about how to
think about the neighborhood. There’s the aspect of this
being on a very small street, but it’s also bordering a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
major highway, and according to the EIR 40% of all the
traffic that’s going to go in and out of the facility is
going to go onto Highway 17, so from that perspective it’s
in a different kind of neighborhood and it’s more related
to downtown, even though it’s on Alberto Way.
So those are the issues that I have in my mind in
terms of questions, and what we’ve got to resolve is these
four issues: the size, the geology, the views, and the
traffic, and whether or not there’s anything else we can do
to make it more acceptable, or whether it’s good enough
right now.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Let me say this. There may be
some questions here that we would like to direct to Staff,
and we can certainly do that, and I think we will. But
there’s also the flow at the moment is pretty good, it’s
moving along, which you should not assume means we’re not
going to come back to you and you won’t have an opportunity
to direct questions to Staff, because you will. So I just
want to make that clear, because I’ve heard some questions
from both of you, and so we’re not ignoring those.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think the main concerns
for me boil down to essentially the same as my fellow
commissioners so far, but this is what I would call an
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
overly constrained problem. We’ve got the neighborhood on
one side requesting a smaller footprint and not a two-story
subterranean garage, and you’ve got the developer
requesting just the opposite.
It seems to me that that’s the real crux of the
issue, because if you did reduce the size of the building,
then you would reduce the amount of traffic that comes in.
It may not be to the level that the residents would prefer,
but it also seems clear that the Town Council has accepted
the traffic study and is satisfied that there won’t be
significant impact, so that leaves us in a bit of a
quandary.
Well, one of the speakers last meeting indicated
that they would be amenable to a larger footprint above
ground if we could make some other changes, so can you
reduce the subterranean footprint, or could you create a
larger footprint above ground and reduce the height of the
building somewhat? I’m not sure what that would do with
regard to size and overall square footage.
But one of the key things that comes through at
every single neighbor’s comments is the views, and how
important those views are to those neighbors. My guess, and
I could be wrong, is that the neighbors will be willing to
accept the subterranean two-story garage—and I’m putting
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ideas in your heads that I know you’ve objected to—if the
footprint could reflect a reduced height so that the views
of the neighborhood could be preserved.
My sense is that there’s a bit of intractability
on both sides, and I think in order for us to get to a
decision a little bit has to give somewhere, so those would
be the two areas that I’d like to see discussion around.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: All right, thank you.
Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Not to repeat anything that
my fellow commissioners said, I do know that we’ve been
tasked by Council to be more factual and objective in the
items that we’re discussing, and I know that there are a
few issues that came up last time that have been a
continued concern.
I also would be curious to hear what Staff has to
say about the traffic and the EIR, because it’s my
understanding that ship has sailed. I believe the EIR is a
validated final item and they’ve met the mitigation
requirements, but I’ll be interested to hear Staff’s
comments when we get to that point.
As far as the parking garage, I’m actually less
concerned about the levels of the parking garage. We’ve
been attempting to encourage this for a very long time to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
keep cars off ground level, and having a background and I
understand the water displacement, so I actually am
appreciative of the fact of keeping cars off the street;
there’s no parking already on the street.
So then it starts coming down more to items such
as mass, neighborhood compatibility, and views, and we look
to our residential and our Town guidelines. We speak of the
views a lot, and when I look back at the item that I’ve
heard that I feel like perhaps we can speak to the best
tonight, it’s views. But again, I’m going to ask a little
bit of Staff on how we analyze that, because I believe the
size of the buildings have already been deemed relatively
appropriate by Council, based on my last viewing of the
Council’s hearing and the recommendations of the mayor, so
I’m a little concerned we’re at that point in this
conversation, so there are a couple of comments I’d like
back from Staff when it’s time.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Thank you. Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I couldn’t say it much better
than Commissioner Hanssen did in identifying the issues.
Size, traffic, geology, views.
I’ve tried to understand the geology, and I’ll
defer to Commissioner Burch and other others who know
better. That’s just not simply an issue for me at this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time, having read and reread what I thought maybe I
understood.
But size remains an issue, and if size could be
addressed in the way I might like it to be, traffic and
views might be addressed as well. But as it is right now,
I’ve gone through the Town Code, five sections I can read
tonight, I’ve gone through the General Plan, which if you
read this late at night it brings a tear to your eye; it’s
really a passionate document, and over and over and over it
talks about protecting and preserving. While we need
business development, it needs to be within the context of
all of these provisions designed to protect and preserve
the Town.
In the Commercial Design Guidelines it’s a
condensed version of what’s all over the General Plan, and
so much of the General Plan, “Preserve and enhance existing
character and place.” It even talks about our seniors in
more than one sense, that we should protect the people who
live here. It talks about infill projects, limit it to do
this and do that.
I think we get tied up in the science of numbers,
you know, 3x5x2x6, and because the land is big enough you
can put in a four-story building. No, you can’t, because
the Town Code, the General Plan, and Commercial Guidelines
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prohibit it with rather clear and compelling, albeit
subjective, standards. When you’ve got subjective standards
you’ve got to really make a good case, and I think the 300
people have made a good case. I’m not saying it’s not in
compliance with these things; 300 people have written us
impassioned letters over and over to preserve their quality
of life.
My view of the Environmental Impact Report is
that it is not sine qua non, it’s a go-no-go, so the
Environmental Impact Report, if accepted, simply says
nothing it’s doing can be mitigated; it doesn’t say it gets
approval.
I asked at our last meeting to, again quoting
Denzel Washington, “Talk to me like a six year old,” and
explain to me what a Class A building is and why is there
such a fuss? The Applicant, or the Appellant, sent Jennifer
Armer a letter and copied me, and it quotes an authority
they refer to as “42,” and it says, “Class A office
definition by 42 floors,” so I guess they’re an authority
on defining such things. I want to read just a part of it.
“Class A buildings are coveted, highly-sought
spaces of significant size, usually in a central location.
In the Central Bus District this could mean 250,000 square
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
feet or more. In a suburban location or small metropolitan
area, a 50,000 square foot building might qualify.”
All right, I’ve got a definition now. So I then
look at the 72,000 as a maybe a case is being made for
fiscal necessity, and the profitability of a project is not
my department—I don’t think, I’ll stand corrected—but
whether or not it makes money, and do we sell the project
because it makes money and give up all of these words on
protecting and preserving and people that are concerned? I
can’t do that. I need to know that in here there’s
something that says they can’t come down below 72,000, and
the document they’ve given me said in a suburban or smaller
location a 50,000 square foot building might qualify.
That’s their letter, not mine. Mr. Thaden (phonetic) and
Mr. Riley (phonetic), experts, both state that more than
95% of Class A office space provides larger floor plates
ranging from 35,000 to 40,000 square feet. That’s 95%.
Cynically I look at that and say the other 5% in small
suburban locations, that would kind of tend of make sense.
I’m telling you what my issues are, and I’m
telling you that I’ve read and reread the letters from the,
let’s call them “the 300,” the 300 Spartans, and they can’t
be ignored; they’re very difficult to ignore.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I watched the Town Council meeting, the one that
we’re referring to, what was that, December 13th or
something, and I watched the end of it twice. A motion was
made with four points on it: square footage, trees,
something else and something else, and it failed. Another
motion was made on square footage, trees, and something
else, and it failed. A third motion was made to say that
the appeal was being granted, specific to new information
and send it back to the Town Council.
(Inaudible) meeting last time we discussed this,
that was interpreted to mean—I believe I’m correct—as de
novo, so we take this from scratch, and in taking this from
scratch I look at the 92,000 to the 86,000 to the 72,000,
74,000, and I feel golly gee, maybe there’s some more room
to go here. And I did question why the offer of 72,260
coincidentally matched the exact number in the Draft EIR. I
didn’t get a very good answer to that, so I feel it’s an
odd coincidence and maybe we have some room to go, and
maybe if we work on that size we can get an issue that
deals with traffic and views and the safety and the virtual
panic from the 300 people who live here. I got a letter
articulating that there’s development on Highway 9 and
there’s development in the back, and these 300 people are
caught in between those and they’re both growing, and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that’s just simply undeniable; I gotta find a way around
that. Thank you for the time.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Thank you. Let me look at this.
My comment, I guess, is this. We have to decide the
Architecture and Site Application, the Conditional Use
Permit, and the Environmental Impact Report.
So the Environmental Impact Report, if I read
this correctly, has not been approved or adopted, but we
would do that. So if you find something fundamentally wrong
with the EIR, you just wouldn’t approve the EIR. I find
nothing fundamentally wrong with the EIR.
We’ve all sat on this before, and I know in a
perfect world we would make a substantial reduction in
this. Having observed what the Council seems to want, I
find myself with two choices here. One can simply strike
out and come up with a number they’re personally
comfortable with, or one can say if we assume that, as the
Council has said, the number used in the EIR, even though
it is just a number, but I read the Council to use that
number as a good number. If one assumes that the Council
thinks that is a good number, what is it we can do? Because
we can send something back to the Council that will not
help them, or we can send something back to the Council
that may help them, and what I see as helpful, would be if
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we don’t like something about the design, not the square
footage, but the design; or the height, again, not the
square footage. The developer has given us these numbers
and also has said—we have two or three letters from their
attorney—on the EIR and the impact of economics, unlike
many things, in an EIR economics are considered, i.e. is it
a feasible project.
So I guess I’m beginning to view what we could do
tonight of a profitable measure is to see if we could do
anything by way of dealing with either the design… Our Town
architect wrote two or three letters, not all of which have
been followed, his comments, many of which have been. Is
there anything we could do with the design that does not
reduce the square footage? Is there anything we can do with
the height—and the height has come down, I think it’s 5’,
further—that would help the views, but also at the end of
the day I would like to do something that would help the
Council and not have the Council simply disregard what
we’ve done, because I think if we do something helpful to
the people who live in that neighborhood, that will be
better than simply sending it back up again and having
something come down which is not as good as maybe what we
could do.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So I would hope that tonight we can try to come
up with something. Some of you will say, as I think Vice
Chair Kane has, he seems to be more definite in rejecting
the project. I am not. To the extent that we can make the
project better without rejecting it, personally, I think
that might be more helpful to everybody, so I throw that
out.
Now, what I’m going to ask at the moment is we
have a number of questions we wanted to ask Staff, and
unless somebody has a better suggestion, I’ll start again
with Commissioner Hudes and see what his questions are,
then we’ll go to Commissioner Hanssen, and so on. So
Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had really two questions
of Staff. One gets to Vice Chair Kane’s comment about
considering this as a de novo application. I’ve given some
thought to this, and I wanted to understand from the
attorney’s perspective and from Staff’s perspective this
process a little bit better.
So we denied this, it was appealed, it went to
Council. Council was presented with new information and
remanded it back to us, and in doing so they deliberated
and they asked that their deliberation be part of the
record. Is it my understanding that we should consider
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those deliberations that were not necessarily part of the
formal motion, but were part of the discussion in terms of
the parameters that we have in looking at the project?
That’s a question for Staff.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I saw his hand up, so I didn’t
know if he…
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Well, I think the question is
directed to you and anybody in Staff that wants to join in.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: It’s a combination of both.
You’re absolutely correct that the Council gave direction
and told you to review the deliberations that they had, and
that’s been provided to you to look at, and so you’re
supposed to take that into consideration as you move
through this just as the entire record… Even the previous
hearings are part of this record. You’ve heard already
testimony about going from 90,000 to 80,000 and now down to
70,000, so that’s all part of your thought process as you
deliberate.
In the sense that as Commissioner Kane says, this
is de novo, and your hands are not tied to decide how you
want to rule on this project. The Council didn’t say to
send it back and make sure you approve it, but they did say
to take into consideration their deliberations. It’s the
same as if the Supreme Court of the United States says…or
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the California Supreme Court sometimes remands it back to
the trial court to redo its ruling and take into
consideration the ruling that they’ve made when you now use
that as evidence to decide how you want to…
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Right, and we’re not an
appellate court for the Council.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: It’s a remand. They’re the
appellate court.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: The other way around. And I
think it’s also fair to the community at large for us to
respect the process and to take into account… Now, the
Council was not unanimous, but there were points that the
Council seemed to converge on, and so I reviewed both the
Council meetings to try to understand what some of those
points were, and some of them had to do with a significant
reduction in size. I think it had been proposed 4,000, but
I think we’re seeing something more in the line of 8,400,
and we’re seeing some other things in reaction to that
guidance that to me I need to think about where the Council
was in their deliberations as part of what we’re doing in
the process, so I just wanted to make sure that it was okay
to do that and it made sense to do that.
I had a second question that’s specific to the
width of Alberto Way, and my opening comment about this. Do
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you know what the current and the proposed width of Alberto
Way is, particularly at the entrance area?
JENNIFER ARMER: I don't know those numbers off
the top of my head, but we do have Staff from our Public
Works Department. I also do believe that at your December
meeting, while you did close public comment in general, you
left it open for questions of the Applicant, and they do
have their consultants here as well, so I’m going to defer
and see if Staff would like to answer that.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Wait, I want to get this clear.
My understanding is nobody is going to speak, because if we
allow… We invited written comments. I would not personally
feel comfortable about allowing one side to make oral
comments and not the other, and Lord knows, I don’t think
we want to reopen the whole thing. That’s just my feeling.
I’m not offering a legal opinion; I’ll defer to Counsel for
that.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Specifically at your last
meeting though you were still in the question phase of the
Applicant, so you were still able to do that. They can’t
make any closing statements, but they could answer your
specific questions, because that’s where you were at. But
if you don’t feel comfortable with that, the Chair and
Commission, then they would not.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR O'DONNELL: I’m just one person, so if the
balance of the commissioners would want to do that, I would
of course…
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I don’t want to take the
Commission in a whole direction. I had assumed we were
going to ask some questions to follow up. I could direct
them to Staff, if the rest of the Commission would…
CHAIR O'DONNELL: I guess what I don’t understand
is we have drawings. We also have a proposal. The drawings
did not show the removal of the bend in the road, as I
understand it, and then there was a proposal made to do
that, and I think it was 980-something square foot
dedication or conveyance, I don't know which, but a portion
of the 980 square feet to show how it cuts off the curve,
but do we have a drawing showing how that 980 square feet
comes out?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, Sheet A-1.01 does show the
right-of-way width. After the dedication would be 63 feet
wide. We’ve got a 10’ lane, a 5’ bike lane, and then a
second 10’ lane for the right turn that’s being show there.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Let me make this suggestion.
You’re getting a lot of information fairly quickly. We’re
not through, and if at the end of our questions you want to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
go back to that, but I would invite you to spend a little
time to look at it, unless you don’t need any more time.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: No, I probably do need some
time and some questions. I tried to do it with my little
ruler, but these have been reduced and I couldn’t get to
the actual size. I was trying to understand how that
relates to the width of a normal vehicle and an emergency
vehicle, and I wanted to go through that either with Staff
or with the Applicant’s experts.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: All right, well I guess what
I’m asking you is what you’ve just heard, do you need more
than that?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had some other questions
on it.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: I don’t mean other questions, I
mean about that specifically. If you do, we can pursue
that. We could ask other Staff on it, or we can defer and
come back later. What would you like to do?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Well, I’d prefer to ask
these questions, and if Staff can answer them, great, and
if not, then…
CHAIR O'DONNELL: And you’re not satisfied then
yet with the answer you just heard?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yeah, it isn’t helpful
enough for me to make a determination.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: What specifically would you
like to know then?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I would like to know with
63’, how does that relate to the 25’ that was just given?
JENNIFER ARMER: The 25’ in terms of…
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Ten plus five plus ten.
JENNIFER ARMER: The 65’ right-of-way, that’s the
width of the land that would be owned by the Town, but that
does also include sidewalks, the planter strip, and such,
on both sides of the street, plus that’s just the
southbound Alberto Way, the lanes that I just discussed.
There is also a 16’ wide lane going northbound on Alberto,
and then it looks like 12’ for the sidewalk and planter on
the other side, and about 10’ on the Alberto Way side.
One comment I would add in terms of the
straightening of the street. While there is still a curve,
I do believe that the width of the proposed dedication is
widest at the bend of the curve, so that it would actually
be straightened somewhat. It’s not a constant width all the
way along the length of the dedication.
JOEL PAULSON: I would just offer that the sheet
that Ms. Armer referenced, I think it was A-1.01, the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
actual roadway width is labeled as 41’, so that would
include the two 10’ lanes, the 5’ in between those, as well
as the 16’ lane on the other side. So the total roadway is
labeled as 41’.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And that’s currently. What
was the original proposal? How much did they widen the
roadway is what I’m getting at.
JOEL PAULSON: We’ll look for that information.
I’m assuming it’s 3’ or less, given that the information…
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I was concerned that it was
zero, because of the way it was stated that in their letter
they state that it eventually tapers back to the original
property line.
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll defer to Ms. Armer as well,
but I think if you look at the sheet A-1.00, which is just
before the sheet we were just talking about, going from
Highway 9 north you’ll notice a little crosshatch area, and
obviously the…
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Hang on for a second. He’s
still trying to find the…
JOEL PAULSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Is it toward the back?
JOEL PAULSON: It is the sheet right before the
one we were just speaking of, so it’s A-1.00. Ms. Armer
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will try to pull that sheet out and put that up on the
overhead.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Right. This is the one I put
my little ruler on.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Hold on for a second, because
now she’s trying to get it on the board.
JENNIFER ARMER: It looks like it is the fifth
sheet in the plan set.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: You can walk over to the board
if you wish; it’s much larger there.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, I’m on the same page.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Okay. So are you following? Go
ahead.
JOEL PAULSON: Ms. Armer, if you could grab the
handheld mick and you can point that area out.
JENNIFER ARMER: So you can see that it is widest
at this point here at the sharpest bend of the curve, and
so it’s a 3’-6” width of dedication. You can see that it
narrows as we get down closer to the property line on this
side towards the residential neighborhood. As you go this
way it also narrows some, but it does extend and stay. At
this location it’s at 2’-9”, so it does include to 3’
dedication all the way up to the intersection, which allows
for the new bike lane and bike box that’s proposed.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I guess the question is with
regard to emergency vehicles does that help an emergency
vehicle get into that street over the way the existing
condition is?
JENNIFER ARMER: The Fire Department has looked
at the proposed project and they have no concerns about
access.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, but the question is
has this improved that situation with this dedication?
JENNIFER ARMER: I believe that the area for the
dedication allows for that free right turn, which may ease
traffic flow because it extends down Alberto Way; it also
does have the bike lane and the width of all of the lanes
are sufficient for standard vehicles and emergency vehicle
access.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Okay, again, may we move on and
you can come back if you have further questions?
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I had a few questions. The
question I asked when I was speaking about comments about
the project, and I think just for the benefit of everyone
in the audience as well, the criteria that we’re supposed
to use for reviewing an EIR?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JENNIFER ARMER: I’m actually going to defer to
the environmental consultant and let him speak to that.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Hold on one second. I don't
know if that’s a legal question or a factual question,
because if it was a legal question, I think we should defer
to the lawyer.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I was thinking it was more
of a legal question.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: That’s what I (inaudible), and
hopefully you know better as a lawyer.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Let me ask a more specific
question. What discretion does the Planning Commission have
in reviewing an EIR?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I’m not sure I even understand
the question. What do you mean what is your discretion? You
either can approve the EIR or deny the EIR. Let me step
back a little bit and explain again. I think we’ve gone
through these steps, what the EIR is. It’s really just a
document to provide you with knowledge. It’s an
informational document to show you what the impacts are and
if there are significant impacts, then how they can be
mitigated. This CEQA document says that all the impacts can
be mitigated to less than significant, so you have to weigh
the evidence to determine whether there’s any evidence
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that’s substantial that bring that into question, and then
potentially you could base your denial on that if you make
the findings.
A couple other things I would point out though.
Environmental impacts are not because of community angst
because they’re upset about the project. It’s not because
property values might go down. It can’t be done by quality
of life.
And then the other part of that is you have to
look at the significant impacts caused by the project.
Because there’s gridlock out there now and there might not
be emergency access available doesn’t mean you can deny the
project. You have to look at what the impacts are from the
actual project, and that’s what the EIR document does.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Just a related question to
that. Supposing that we thought there was a better
mitigation for the solution, that could be a reason to
recommend a different mitigation or…
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Yes, you could attach additional
conditions, and I think you’ve kind of done that in the
Staff Report to show based on some of the evidence that has
been brought, there is additional mitigation measures that
need to be put in to address any impacts. Absolutely.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So then this is the second
question on the EIR’s Staff, then. In reading through the
section on the aesthetics, and I think the majority of the
Commissioners mentioned this on view, if you read the EIR
they basically say… I’m going to summarize what they said,
but it’s along the lines of the views on Alberto Way right
now are obstructed without the project. They’re obstructed
by trees, at least partially, and they’re obstructed by the
35’ tall three buildings that are there now, and so their
conclusion was that because our codes allow up to a 35’
building, that while there will be partial blockages of
parts of the view, that it’s already blocked and so
therefore it’s not significant.
I guess where I’m at in this thing is back to
approving the EIR. Now, if we agree that the EIR has no
impacts, what grounds do we have to say we need to change
the view? We have the General Plan and the Commercial
Design Guidelines, I understand that, but doesn’t that
create a conflict?
JENNIFER ARMER: I think you hit it actually. You
do have those other documents. The Environmental Impact
Report is based on the regulations in CEQA, the California
Environmental Quality Act, and so those are the regulations
that are put in place by the state.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In addition to those, and the determination based
on those of no impact, we also have other guidance
documents. We have our General Plan, we have our Commercial
Design Guidelines, and so what you are considering tonight
is not just the EIR and its analysis, but also your
interpretation of our guidance documents.
JOEL PAULSON: I would just add as well that it’s
important to understand—I know we’ve talked about this
before—Staff believes that the EIR is legally adequate and
meets the requirements of CEQA. The Town does not have any
objective thresholds of what diminishing of views would
constitute an environmental impact. The other documents you
could certify and the Environmental Impact Report does not
require you to approve a project. So I think it’s important
to remember that there are certain thresholds, and these
were reviewed when the Environmental Impact Report was
prepared, and the determinations were that there are no
significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than
significant level.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, good. Moving on, I
had a question about this Class A issue. I, too, read
through the information provided by the Applicant, and I
actually had found that website where they talked about the
42, whatever; I found that on my own before I read this and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I thought oh, but the thing is there’s…so that the
Applicant had support from some realtors that are active in
leasing this kind of space that said that they’re looking
for floor plates of 35,000 to 40,000. But I wondered if it
didn’t depend on the number of employees as well? I mean
certainly because of amenities I can see why they need a
bigger floor plate. But I also thought that we probably had
some other Class A office space in Los Gatos, and we don’t
have a lot of commercial buildings this large in Los Gatos.
I thought that I read that the building that was just
approved on Winchester is considered Class A, so that was
my question. Is that Class A, because that is much smaller?
JOEL PAULSON: I would say I think the Applicant
definitely intends on the Winchester project to create a
Class A project, and so other Commissioners may have some
additional input on Class A. Applicant has provided input
on that. There are a number of factors that go into those
numbers, both higher and lower, and site constraints
obviously would be one of those. Winchester has different
site constraints than this site. I would say that the most
recent Class A is probably the Netflix facility, which is
the 435,000 square feet, or 485,000, I can’t remember, in
four buildings, so it really is site specific. This is what
the Applicant has provided for their justification
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
standpoint, and then from brokers who do deal with these
types of projects in the Valley, but ultimately it’s up to
the Commission, with all of these topics, frankly, to make
a determination as to whether or not you believe this is
the appropriate project for this specific site.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: That’s perfectly fine, so
that makes sense.
Then on the traffic, there was a discussion in
the Town Council meeting that didn’t resolve itself into
any follow up per se, but this back to the traffic, and the
proposed improvements include a dedicated right turn lane,
and then there would be a shared left through lane, and the
topic came up about… And I was looking at some of the
drawings that some of the neighborhood people put up about
the people that would be coming into Alberto Way would be
coming probably off of Highway 17, taking a left onto
Alberto Way, and then taking a left in the property. People
on the other side of the street are going to be taking a
left while they’re taking a left, and so I thought in the
morning…I wondered if even though the Traffic Impact
Analysis didn’t flag it as a safety issue, if it wouldn’t
be safer to have a dedicated left turn lane, and I thought
I remembered our Parks and Public Works Staff saying that
more parking spots would have to be given up, but I don’t
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
remember exactly what. So I was just curious about that,
even though the Traffic Impact Analysis didn’t flag that as
a safety issue, would it in fact be safer if we had a
dedicated turn lane in the middle, and then what would it
take to make that happen given the width of the street now?
JENNIFER ARMER: A bit of clarification. When
you’re talking about a left turn lane, you mean a left turn
lane going into the project? Or a left turn at the
intersection with Highway 9?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I was thinking of either a
dedicated left turn lane going out of Alberto Way, so there
would be a right turn lane…
JENNIFER ARMER: A throughway.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: There could be an either
and then an only left turn lane, but I wondered if it
wouldn’t be better to have a two-way turn lane, although I
don't know if there’s enough space to make that safe, so
that if people wouldn’t be blocking traffic going through,
there would be like a dedicated turn lane in the middle.
That was a couple of ideas that I had thought of,
so I wondered if that would impact approval or would it be
worse, and what it would take to get that.
MIKE WEISS: Good evening, Commissioners. Mike
Weiss, Associate Engineer. In regard to adding a dedicated
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
left turn lane in addition to a through lane, it would
require additional right-of-way width. In regard to the
safety, I’m going to defer to our transportation
consultant, Colin Burgett from TJKM.
COLIN BURGETT: At that location the use of a
left turn lane would primarily be in the morning, so about
150 cars or so making left turns into the project during
the morning peak hour, and at that time the through volume
is very low, it would be less than 50 cars, so there just
isn’t a high enough volume to warrant a separate left turn
lane and through lane based on that relatively low through
volume in the morning.
And in the afternoon the left turn volume can be
pretty low, only about 30 cars making a left turn into the
project, and so at that time the left turn volume in the
afternoon would be too low to warrant a left turn lane.
From a safety perspective, overall the volumes
are relatively low, and since more of the morning cars are
making a left turn it wouldn’t be a situation that
sometimes occurs on other streets where the majority of
traffic is through traffic and they’re surprised by a left
turn.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So what you’re saying is
it would really only be a issue in the morning, and then in
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the afternoon the majority of the people coming out of the
project are going to be turning right onto Highway 9 and
getting on Highway 17 or going elsewhere.
COLIN BURGETT: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So it wouldn’t be an
issue, and then in the morning you’re not going to have a
lot of traffic going the other way.
COLIN BURGETT: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, good, that helps a
lot. All right.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: I’m going to stop you for a
minute, because we’re going to move back and forth I think
rather than spending too much time on one person, so
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’m sort of fixated on the
idea of changing the footprint as proposed for the 74,000
and thinking about what Commissioner O'Donnell has said in
understanding that the Town Council is possibly interested
in and would approve a 74,000, how can we make that work,
at least footprint and parking-wise?
One of the questions I have is in Exhibit 31
there’s a report from Caltrans, and on page 2 of that there
is a list of traffic demand management suggestions, and one
of the bullet points says a 10% vehicle parking reduction.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So my question is currently at 74,000 square feet
they are required to provide 298 parking spaces. Would the
Town be willing to impose a 10% vehicle parking reduction
on the property owner in order to reduce the number of
parking spaces required so it would give them a little more
flexibility, for instance, enlarging the footprint on the
surface, which eliminates some parking spaces? So a 10%
reduction from the 298 would drop the parking requirement
down to about 260 or so parking spaces, 260, 270.
JOEL PAULSON: If that’s a decision that the
Commission wants to include in whatever decision they
ultimately make this evening, that’s definitely possible. I
think in those types of scenarios you run the risk of then
having cars needing to park on the streets in the adjacent
neighborhood, which becomes challenging, so that would be
the one caution I would have.
The other would be removing that amount of spaces
then removes probably most of the surface parking that they
are proposing, and if I remember correctly there was a
suggestion, a request, to add surface parking, so it may
reduce some of the excavation if they chose to take that
out of the underground garage, but you still would have two
levels underground, and I don't know if our Parks and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Public Works Staff have any additional input on that.
Seeing none.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: (Inaudible).
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I don’t at the moment. Every
question I come up with has been asked so far.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Okay, Commissioner Burch has no
questions then. Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: As I said earlier, I watched
the Town Council deliberations twice last night, and I
started writing. Without using any names, unless you’ve
watched it, that there was concessions at Town Council and
not at the Planning Commission regarding new information,
essentially that this was de novo. It was mentioned to
incorporate the Town Council guidance. There was
disagreement with that, because there was disagreement with
the motion that had failed twice. Somebody said 4,000 feet,
somebody said no, not just 4,000 reduction, at least.
Somebody said 74,000, somebody said no, not an arbitrary
number. The maker of the motion said there are no specifics
in my motion. Reduce, but leave open the specifics.
New motion. Town Council, Planning Commission
should use all information available, and the mayor said
focus on objective criteria, not what shall be the numbers.
I mentioned earlier that one of the Town Council people
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
said it went from 92,000 to 87,000 to 74,000, and it was
said that when we got the Planning Commission, maybe then
we’d get their best shot, and I’d like to try to make a
best shot, and I’ve made a case for the Class A from 42 is
being 50,000; there was another number here at 55,000.
I want to go back and reiterate, when the Draft
EIR talked about 74,000 it said that such a reduction would
then likely allow for one underground garage, and I’m
thinking that certainly in the neighborhood of 55,000 we’d
be looking at the likelihood of one underground garage,
which alleviates a lot of people’s concerns; could
alleviate traffic, could alleviate views, could alleviate
size.
So I don't know how we get there, Mr. Chairman,
but we’ve got room, and we’ve got a green light to make an
offer to make a motion in the fifties to see if we can get
a 55,000 Class A, which is what 42 says is possible, and
get a one-level garage, and in that way look for a
compromise to address the concerns of the neighborhood.
There will be increased traffic, there will be reduced
views, here will be this, there will be that, but it’s
better than what we have right now if we can get a smaller
number.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR O'DONNELL: You can’t compromise with
somebody who isn’t present, and we’ve closed the public
comment, so there will be no compromise, unless you say
we’ve made a compromise, we’ve told you what you’re going
to do, but that’s probably not a compromise.
VICE CHAIR KANE: It’s a good point, and I’m
confused.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: No, I’m not entering in a
dialogue…
VICE CHAIR KANE: When they asked us to give the
specific numbers, what did that mean?
CHAIR O'DONNELL: You are out of order and I’ve
asked you to be quiet for the moment. It’s my turn, and I’m
going to talk. I don’t think we can redo the project. If
you want to turn it down, you can turn it down. My view is
notwithstanding reading the tea leaves as to what the
Council wanted, the number they used was the number that I
would not have used, but it was a number from the EIR, and
I think some of the Councilpeople focused on that.
I guess my view is this project in many respects
is a very good project. The biggest objection of everybody
is it’s too big, and I said that the first night we heard
this, and I was talking about a very substantial reduction.
As I read this over and over again, I am convinced that the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Applicant is saying only at a certain level can I afford
the improvements of this project. You want a different
project; maybe you’ll have a different applicant. Maybe
you’ll have a totally different project, but if you want
this project, I don’t think you’re going to go down to
50,000 or 55,000 square feet. You will have a totally
different… So if you want to turn the project down, we can
recommend that, and as I say, who knows what the Council
would do, but my feeling is the Council will not turn the
project down if reasonable steps are taken.
The only thing I can see as giving us a better
assurance of helping anyone on this project, and we have
not heard a word of it yet, is is there anything we can do
with either the height or the design without affecting in
any substantial way the square footage? Because the
Applicant is saying basically I need something like this
square footage, and if we do that then I can afford these
other things. We have not pursued, nor have we had a
suggestion tonight, is there anything else that could be
done and leave the square footage alone? Everybody may
disagree with that, but at the end of the day I think that
would be more helpful to the Council, and if it’s more
helpful to the Council, it would be more helpful to
everybody sitting here, because it’s not going to be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
helpful to the neighbors to find out that a 74,000 square
feet project has been approved as proposed without any
input from us as to how we might make that project better.
Commissioner Janoff has her hand up; maybe she can help me
there.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I have some ideas,
Commissioner. I just wanted to go back to Commissioner
Kane’s question. If I back calculate the amount of square
footage that would be possible, given a single-story
underground garage, plus above ground parking, I’m just
using the structure that they currently have proposed. It’s
137, I believe, on the first floor of the underground, plus
32 surface spaces, so that’s 169. If you divide the 74 by
the number of parking spaces they’re proposing, which is
according to the Town requirement, it gives you a certain
number. Multiply that number by 169. The largest building
they could create with the current single-story
subterranean garage and the aboveground 32 spaces is about
45,000 square feet, so it’s small, and I’m guessing that
might be unacceptably small to the developer. Maybe great
for the neighbors, but that’s what I’m calculating.
So, again, the question is how can we make this
work? Now, in the first proposal that the developer
proposed there were two buildings, they were approximately
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45,000 square feet each, which means they had floor plates
of less than 25,000 square feet, so a attractiveness of
25,000 square foot plate was good then and I’m assuming
it’s still good now.
You’ve got Class A buildings all over town, all
over the county, all over the state, where tenants are
leasing anywhere from the entire floor to a couple thousand
square feet, so the size of the plate per se isn’t a Class
A requirement. Desirable perhaps from building standpoint
or development standpoint because you can make more space
and create more money downstream, but it’s the amenities,
it’s are you providing an in-house drycleaner, a gym for
the employees, a café for people coming through? Are your
materials of construction of a very high quality? That’s
what defines Class A, and if you look at the Class B
buildings that are going through their refurbishment,
they’re not adding square footage, they’re adding
amenities, they’re adding those things that I just talked
about, so I would respectfully suggest that the 37,000 or
the 35,000 square foot plate is not necessarily for a Class
A building.
Having said that, there’s no doubt in my mind
that you can create a 63,000 square foot building to a
72,000 square foot building with a combination of two-story
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and single-story construction. A lot of the deliberation
and the expert testimony and some of the documents that
we’ve got, I think we’re probably okay with a two-story
subterranean parking structure as long as there’s
appropriate measuring and mitigation for the property
owners.
So let’s allow that there may be a two-story
parking garage below in order to reduce the footprint…not
reduce the footprint, perhaps increase the footprint up top
but reduce the height. So, for instance, if the builder
goes back to the original proposal, there was a two-story
building that came closer to Alberto Way and a two-story
building that was a little bit smaller back roughly where
the second half of the current proposal is. If you increase
the size of the left-hand portion of the building out to
the original story pole lines, and went up so you’ve got a
big building there, and it’s not particularly attractive.
The entire architecture right now is not particularly
attractive, however, the views that the neighbors are
asking to be preserved are generally the views that are
along the Highway 17 side of the property, so if you allow
for a larger two-story building on the Highway 9 side and
one-story construction, it would be a nice, tall 15’
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
interior construction. It could be tall, but it would still
give you the views that the neighbors are requesting.
Moreover, if the developer was willing to
consider that, you could put some of the amenities toward
the front of that new two-story building, and some of the
amenities that would include a drycleaner, a café, or some
other amenities that help the tenants of the building, but
could also be available for residents, so the development
isn’t a complete loss to the neighbors.
So my recommendation would be to consider
increasing the surface… And the reason I asked about the
10% reduction is if you pull the building out further to
the original story pole lines you’re going to lose about
ten parking spaces. So you could say we’ll reduce the
requirement for so many parking spaces by ten in order for
this to happen. You’d still have some surface parking,
you’d still have two-story parking, but down below.
My point in all of this is that there’s a way to
create the square footage that the developer is asking for
and allow for views that the residents are asking for, and
within the approximate 60,000 to 70,000 square feet that
seems to be on the table.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Let me see if I understand.
They were good questions. I want to make sure I understand
what you’re saying.
You’re saying you’re not necessarily against
74,000 square feet, the range you’ve talked about now is
60,000 to 74,000, I think, or 72,000, but you want to get a
single-story building in part of the property so the
neighbor’s view would be protected, which would mean then
that what I’ll call the second building would be larger
than it presently is; it would be the same height, but it
would be wider. Now, I don't know, and I don't know if
anybody knows, whether that could be done in such a fashion
that the total square footage asked for by the Applicant
would be the same, but it would be rearranged, but your
suggestion is there is that possibility, is that correct?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: That’s correct, and I’m not
suggesting that the rearrangement of two-story/one-story
would achieve 74,000 square feet, but the original Planning
Commission request was to bring it down to 63,000, and the
neighbors have pretty much said that the 62,000, 60,000,
would be acceptable, but they also want views. So how do
you make that happen? In deference to the developer, who
may want that added square footage and in deference to the
neighbors who would like to have views, I think we can
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
accomplish both by approving a combination of single-story
and two-story structures.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Okay, we’ve got two hands up,
and I think Vice Chair Kane had the first.
VICE CHAIR KANE: For the Town Attorney. We’ve
had involvement from Town Council, and sometimes we talk
about this going back to Town Council. I wanted your
assistance in making this perfectly clear that we in fact
are the deciding body right now, and it only goes to Town
Council if it gets appealed, and if we are in fact the
deciding body, then we have alternatives to an up or down
motion. We can continue the matter to a date certain with
specific direction, which means we can adopt, for example,
a lot of what Commissioner Janoff just said, or some of the
things I said, radical, we can approve the application and
put on additional modified conditions, or we can deny it.
So I’m saying that we do have constructive input
at this point. This is a regular de novo case before us,
like every other one we’ve got, and we can say I want the
roof lower, I want the shingles blue, I want this, and
we’ll talk further about it in July. So we have the option
as the deciding body to make revisions, suggest revisions,
and continue this to a date certain, is that correct?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: That is correct.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR KANE: So I’d like to support a lot of
what I just heard, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I appreciate looking for
creative solutions, but I did want to go back to a couple
of sort of factual things.
The square footage that was considered by the
Council, what was that square footage that they were asking
for a further… Some of them were asking for 4,000, some of
them were asking for 74,000. What was that about?
JENNIFER ARMER: The plans that were reviewed by
Town Council were the 83,000.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So there’s been an
approximately 9,000 square foot reduction from that,
correct?
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay. The other thing with
regard to Commissioner Janoff and the discussion about
63,000 that was, she said, the request of the Planning
Commission. That’s not actually correct. I was on the
Planning Commission at that time. One Commissioner stated
that figure. The Commission voted not to determine a
63,000, that was not part of the record, so I am a little
concerned about introducing a design or a figure that has
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
never been considered or analyzed that I have heard was the
Council discussing an application that was 83,000,
requesting a reduction, and us getting a revised
application for 74,000, so I just wanted to establish that
those are some of the facts that we’re dealing with.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: If I understand Commissioner
Janoff, and this is a question to her, really, you weren’t
precluding 74,000, but you were saying there might be a
range, and I don’t disagree at all with what Commissioner
Hudes said, but I don't know where we’re quite going at the
moment, but were we to say this is what we think would be
satisfactory, you have not precluded 74,000 in your
suggestion?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: That’s correct.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Okay. Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I appreciate the thoughts.
I guess I was kind of more of the mind that my feeling
after watching the Council hearing is that they pretty much
had it narrowed down to just a few things and that they
were pretty happy with a relatively modest size reduction,
although they didn’t specifically say that in their motion,
that was in their discussion. And so I was more of the mind
that we needed to look at this on the merits of what we got
from the Applicant versus trying to change that materially.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So what I did for myself is I wrote down what are
the reasons to approve this thing, and there actually are
some compelling reasons. The need for the Class A office
space, being LEED Gold certified. I mean we have a
Sustainability Plan in Los Gatos and we don’t have a lot of
buildings that are LEED Gold, and so this is a great thing
for our Sustainability Plan. It’s zoned for commercial. It
meets all the objective standards. No exceptions requested.
It’s just steps away from Highway 17. The Applicant has
cooperated and reduced the size. There are no significant
impacts in the EIR, and they’ve gone over and above in
terms of the required mitigation, and they’ve offered
additional concessions like the shuttle, which although
isn’t a land use issue it might maybe help a little bit
with traffic.
So then I wondered about what we could do to make
the project better without materially changing it. I was
looking more at stuff like could the building be made
coming a little closer to the street and maybe have the
setback on the north side be a little bit more, because I
went down there today and took some pictures and there
actually is a very nice view of the hills in that area
between the north side boundary line and the nearest
building, with the exception of a big tree that’s kind of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
blocking part of the view. I was looking at things like
that, and the public access easements for the surface
parking and open space, and I wondered about some other
things.
I worry about what has been brought up in
hearings about the trend in the Silicon Valley to reduce
the number of square footage per employee, so in order to
make sure that the traffic numbers in the Traffic Impact
Analysis hold up I wondered about maybe limiting the number
of total employees that could be in the building by a
tenant.
And these are relatively less minor things. Is
there a way to remove that large pine tree in the northwest
part of the property? I also wrote down a written agreement
to maintain the shuttle for three to five years. But those
are the kind of things I had in mind that would make the
project better without materially changing it, and so that
was where I came up. I wasn’t thinking as much dramatic
change and another redesign.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Can I also say this, just
listening to everybody? At the moment I think I’ve divided
the comments sort of into two. A significant revisiting
would require a continuance and some instructions to the
Applicant as to what we wanted, otherwise it wouldn’t make
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any sense at all. The other one is not to continue the
matter but to make a decision and now, and if you wish to,
I guess, impose some additional conditions, although the
conditions I’ve heard now would have to be studied, I
think, and that would mean that you couldn’t very well do
it tonight. I’m not singling out yours, but any changes of
a substantial nature may have to at least go back to the
drawing board or have an opportunity to respond to us and
say is this a good thing or a bad thing, because we don’t
know. We’re not supposed to design from up here, and we’re
not trying to do that.
The fundamental question I guess I have is
Commissioner Janoff has, I think, a good suggestion, but
that would require a revisiting, a redrawing. Now, the
Applicant could say not going to do this, it doesn’t make
any sense to us, and then they could appeal.
I, personally, would like to do something tonight
that would be acceptable in the broadest sense for both the
Applicant and the neighbors. The neighbors have a very,
very serious problem; it is not going to go away whether
you put in a 60,000 square foot building there or a 74,000
square foot building; it just isn’t. So I guess that being
the case the only thing I would like is some direction from
the Planning Commission on is it something you want to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
decide tonight, or is it something you want to send back,
in other words, continue the matter?
I, personally, if at all possible, would like to
decide the matter tonight. I don’t think Commissioner
Janoff’s suggestion fits that bill, although I like her
suggestion, but I think if we implement your suggestion we
could not make that decision, is that your understanding?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Okay, so that having been said,
I’ll throw it back to all of you to hear what do you want
to do with this tonight? Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Since I’m causing issues.
The residents are seriously unhappy right now, and the
developers are essentially following the guidance that was
provided by the Town Council. I think it’s incumbent upon
us to try to get it as right as we can, and if that takes a
little bit more time in what has been a relatively time
consuming process, I think we owe it to the Town to do
that.
I don't know how much additional work is required
on the part of the developer to show even conceptually what
a single-story/two-story combination might look like, but I
do think it’s a good step in the direction of helping to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
come to a reasonable compromise, so I would be willing to
take one more meeting to do that.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Can I hear some of the other
Commissioners on I think we have two choices in a broad
sense. Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I think Commissioner
Janoff’s suggestions make sense in this situation. I’m very
troubled about the concerns that the neighbors have with
this project, and I’m concerned that we did not get
extremely specific direction from the Council. So given
that, I think it would be good to do another round and take
a look at the suggestions that have been made, including
those suggestions by Commissioner Hanssen that I think are
maybe less drastic than complete building redesign. I heard
something about exploring building location, which is
probably the most significant one that was suggested. I
heard understanding whether total employees could be
limited, removing a pine tree, codifying the shuttle.
And by the way, I think the step to put the
shuttle in is very positive. I think it’s something that
not only helps with traffic, and we were all concerned
about the numbers in the traffic impact report, I think it
also provides community benefit and is something I wish
other developers would consider as well, so I think that if
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we need to go another round on looking on how that gets
codified, I think it’s worth it.
Those are all things that make sense. I did read
the information on what it would take to go to a single-
level parking, and although I’m the one that raised that in
terms of wanting more information, and certainly the
community raised that as an idea, I’m not convinced that
it’s possible to do that on this site for a variety of
reasons that were stated, so I am not reopening that
particular item, but the other items make sense to me.
And again, along the lines of what Council Member
Jensen’s original motion was, and that is to explore these
items and to analyze them and come back having explored
them, for the Applicant to explore them with Staff, and to
present some information back to us.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Let me ask a question of Staff.
One thing you said that we might be able to get an answer.
I have personally not heard of an employee limitation as
opposed to a square footage limitation, so I would just
direct the question to the three of you: Does anybody have
an opinion on given whatever the square footage is, could
you say you may not have more than X employees? I see a
head shaking violently no here, but you(inaudible).
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll add to the head shaking.
Building occupancy is set by the Building Code, so we
wouldn’t be regulating the number of employees. It’s
occupants, and so that’s not something that we would do.
Depending on how it’s laid out, then they have to calculate
the occupancy for the building. It has to meet Building
Code and Fire code.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Part of the reason I asked the
question is, I, personally, don’t want to send it back with
a bunch of somewhat ephemeral questions. I haven’t made my
own decision yet, but if we were to send it back with
Commissioner Janoff’s suggestions, which I think are
concrete, I could understand them. I don’t know what the
answer is, because the Applicant would have to look at it
and say this is doable, it isn’t doable, and we can’t tell
them what’s doable and what’s not, but at least you can
understand what Commissioner Janoff is saying.
As to the other things like trees and stuff like
that, I think we could condition an approval on some
reasonable things like that, so I’m not against them, but I
just wouldn’t want to send it back with too many issues. I
would like to be very clear if we were to send it back, so
that the Applicant would have an incentive to do it. Now,
my understanding from the people who live in the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
neighborhood, they’re not just concerned with the view,
they’re concerned with traffic, they’re concerned with all
kinds of things. The proposal of Commissioner Janoff, while
a good one, will only address, I think, the view, and it’s
not clear to me at all that that would satisfy the majority
of the neighbors. If that’s the case, it’s almost like if
you could address satisfactorily most of the concerns of
the neighbors, I’m all in favor of it, but this particular
suggestion would only address the view, and my perception
of what everybody out here has said, that wouldn’t be
enough. If that’s the case, then I don't know why we would
send it back to redraw the thing, because at the end of the
day you’ve got 74,000 square feet and people are going to
come up and say too much traffic, I can’t get an ambulance
in here, whatever, whatever, and we’re not going to have
advanced the ball down the field. Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: In my opinion, the proposal
on the table is not acceptable, so the question is what
portions of that does the Planning Commission reasonably
have an opportunity to affect? I believe watching the
deliberations of the Town Council, I think they make it
relatively clear they were comfortable with the traffic
report, comfortable with the EIR, comfortable with the
other concerns that you raised, which the neighbors are not
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comfortable with, but for us to send it back with a denial
right back… And many of the modifications that are included
in this proposal do reflect the suggestions that the Town
Council made, the window glazing and so forth, so if we
deny it based on what we have at present, I’m guessing it
will be appealed and the neighbors will have what we have
on the table.
My view is we can improve what we have on the
table so that there’s at least some benefit for the
neighbors. I’m willing to forgo the arguments, and with all
respect to the neighbors and your concerns, I appreciate
them, I understand them, I think there is some room that
I’d like to discuss later if we get to a point where we
want to approve something I think we can tighten up some of
the CUP requirements, but the things I’m afraid of is that
if we deny it, it will go back to the Council and it will
be stamped, because the developer has accommodated many of
the requirements that some of the Town Council members had
been looking for, so realistically I think we have very
little room here to make some changes, so that’s my
motivation.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Let me make a suggestion. You
make a motion, let’s see if we get a second, and then we
can vote on it. If people feel that’s premature, I’ll be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
guided by that, too, but unless I hear that you think it’s
premature I would invite a motion from Commissioner Janoff
and see if we can get a second.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I would move to continue
the request for the Architecture and Site Application with
guidance to the developer to redevelop or redesign the
elevations of the building so that it accommodated both
single-story and one-story in order to maximize the views
of the neighborhood, particularly the views that would be
visible along the Highway 17, not the Highway 9…
CHAIR O'DONNELL: The north end of the property.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think it’s the western
side of the property. And by doing that, if you’re inclined
to stick to the 74,000 square feet you’ve proposed, that’s
fine, but make sure that you’re doing it in such a fashion
that it either increases the two-story in one direction and
allows for a single-story in another to give the residents
more views.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Is there a second? There is a
second, Commissioner Burch.
Let me ask Staff, you’ve heard the motion. Before
we discuss it further and vote on it, is there anything in
the motion that the Staff would find not clear enough for
the Staff to have subsequent input on?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: I think the discussion this
evening is clear, and then it would depend on what, if
anything, the Applicant was willing to do in terms of a
redesign.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: All right, Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I just wanted to come back
to some of Commissioner Hanssen’s suggestions, and rather
than try to get them third-hand, I would invite
Commissioner Hanssen to weigh in on whether those should
also be things considered in a continuance?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: The thing that’s troubling
me is I too am very concerned that some of the other
residents are really worried about what’s happening with
this development and the impacts it will have, and so I did
a lot of math over the last few days, and not to make light
of the 60,000 number, but we have to come up with some
objective sort of standard, and I looked at it in terms of
traffic and I’m like well it’s pretty much a corresponding
percentage difference, so if you take the thing down 20%
it’s going to go down to like 416 instead of 489 daily
trips, and the peak AM trips is going to go down to 80
instead of 104. It’s still a lot more than they have now,
and so I’m just not sure that just fixing the view is going
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to really help, and then to put the Applicant through a
required redesign.
I mean maybe it ought to be more non-specific
about what to do, but I don’t know that we can be that non-
specific.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: If I understood Commissioner
Hudes correctly, you, independent of this, had some of your
own concerns, and I think we were just trying to explore
that.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I wanted to make that
comment as a predecessor to say that I don't know if it
makes sense for them to say move the north setback over if
they’re going to be required to do a redesign to bring the
thing down, but if it’s open about how they get the view
better, then my suggestion would make sense.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: What was your suggestion? I
missed it.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I basically said right now
the Applicant had added another 30’ to the north setback,
so now it’s 56’, and I thought that the residents had
talked about it being 80’, so I thought if it was 80’, that
would take it a little bit beyond where the farthest most
north building is right now, and right now the view is
actually pretty good, with the exception of that big pine
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tree I was talking about when you look at that. All I’m
saying is if it has to be redesigned, or is there another
way that they can improve the view? I’m not trying to leave
it vague, but my suggestion to change the north setback
might be part of the proposal, but if they put it back into
two buildings it’s probably not realistic to do that.
They’re probably going to end up moving more over closer to
the property line would be my guess.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: What would you like to add to
the motion?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I could add the other
things. We got feedback that we can’t limit the number of
employees, but we could limit the number of occupants, but
it’s based on the Fire Code anyway, so there’s no need to
put a condition in. They were talking about as low as 75
square feet per employee, which would 800-900 employees. Is
there any chance that the Fire Code would allow that many
employees in a building?
JOEL PAULSON: That’s possible, it just depends
on the layout for the specific tenant, so that’s handled
when the tenant improvements for a specific tenant come
through the building plan check process, and then the
occupant load has to be provided by the Applicant and then
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is checked by Staff to make sure it complies with the
Building Code and Fire Code.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So I don’t think it would
make sense to add that. I did mention the written agreement
to maintain the shuttle for three to five years. I think
that is an outstanding thing that the developer had done. I
know they agreed to it in the terms and conditions, but…
Yes?
JENNIFER ARMER: I just wanted to call your
attention to the new condition of approval that Staff did
add to the draft conditions for your consideration, which
actually does include it in the Conditional Use Permit, so
that would continue. If they wanted to stop the shuttle,
they would be required to come back to this body to request
a modification to their Conditional Use Permit.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Oh, good, so that’s
covered. Well, I saw it in the terms and conditions, but I
wasn’t sure if it would actually be in the Conditional Use
Permit or not. Okay, great, so that answers that.
Then the other thing I had was it’s really
outstanding that the Applicant had offered to make the
surface parking available to the residents, and also the
open space on the north end, assuming that that continues,
and I hope that it would be not just a terms and conditions
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thing, but there would be some kind of easement that it
would be there as different tenants came through and that
sort of thing.
JENNIFER ARMER: Again, it wasn’t specifically a
recorded easement, but it is one of the conditions that is
part of the Conditional Use Permit, and the Conditional Use
Permit runs with the land, so it doesn’t matter which
tenant is in there, but that would be one of the conditions
that they would have to meet to continue an office use in
this location, and any modification to that would require a
modification to the Conditional Use Permit.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, so that’s covered,
because it’s in the CUP as well. So I think that was pretty
much the major items that I had.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I wanted to come back to the
motion. My understanding is that we’re not redesigning the
building to be one-story/two-story, but we are giving
direction—tell me if I got this right—for the Applicant to
evaluate or explore the possibility of improving the views
by going to a one-story/two-story solution.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: That’s not my understanding. We
can go to the maker. My understanding was—we’ll have two
understandings here if you tell us—I understood you to say
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you wanted a project having a one-story element to it, and
I guess a two-story element to it. Perhaps I misunderstood
what you wanted, and if you could explain it to us.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: No, that’s correct. My
feeling is I’m not proposing that we dictate the size of
the one-story or two-story, but I am concerned that if we
only suggest that there might be a one-story/two-story
we’ll get back the same kind of blocky structure maybe
shifted on the property a little bit, but it doesn’t do
much in general.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: You did say the one-story would
be so arranged as to improve the view, that is to say, I
keep throwing out north, but I think it’s the north side of
the property, which would open up the west side. Yes, that.
So in other words, if they came with a one-story on the
other side of the property, that’s not what you’re asking
for.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: That’s correct.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Okay. Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Questions for Commissioner
Janoff. Do we have any evidence that’s been presented to us
that suggests that they can accomplish a one-story/two-
story solution in the range of square footage that we’re
talking about, roughly 74,000?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I don’t have my ruler out,
but looking at Drawing A-1.00, I’m looking at the footprint
from the originally proposed 91,000 or 93,000 square foot
project, and that building was, I don't know whether that’s
the 44,000 or the 47,000 square foot project, but that’s
the substantial area where I believe a two-story building
could be constructed, and it does what Commissioner Hanssen
suggests, and that’s pulling the building out closer to
Alberto Way. However much or little of what would now be
the top part of the L becomes one-story or remains two-
story would be a question for the developer, but the point
is that any modification to, as Commissioner O'Donnell
refers to it, the north end of the proposed building, any
modification of that that brings any portion of that to a
single story would help preserve the view, so my
recommendation is for them to consider how they can achieve
the square footage, not necessarily proportioned two-
story/one-story.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I mean I’m okay with
recommendation to consider, but I’m concerned about a
mandate to do this, because I don’t think there’s actually
evidence that it could be accomplished, and I actually
believe we had testimony earlier that said that any time
you move the building closer to Alberto Way, you decrease
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the views, you obstruct the views of those hillsides. I’m
okay with consider and explore. I don’t think we have
evidence that would allow me to support a motion that says
that’s a mandate to do a one-story/two-story.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Well, these in a sense are
never mandates when you send it back and say I’d like you
to try to do this. That’s really all you’re saying: I’d
like you to try to do this. Now, they can come back and say
we’ve done six drawings and you can’t do it, because here,
let me show you, and if they do that, then they could
convince us that it doesn’t work.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: If that’s the motion, then
I’m okay.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: That’s my understanding. Is
that correct, Commissioner Janoff?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: So if it wasn’t worded
correctly, we should make sure that it is worded as
Commissioner Hudes wishes and as I think I’ve just said.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I would propose a couple
other things to consider in that vein. One is whether
Commissioner Hanssen’s suggestion to move the north setback
would improve views as well. We said that that might be an
“or,” or another option to improve views.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And the other item is actually coming back to
something that’s an old idea that came up. There was
actually quite a bit of testimony from residents that a dog
park wasn’t necessarily the best use, and so I was again
suggesting that while it be publicly accessible open space,
that the Applicant explore potentially other uses for that
space that might be more attractive to the neighbors.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Let me again say something,
because I’m trying to understand this as we’re going along,
too. I understand Commissioner Janoff wanting the view, but
I also understand her to say the architectural look would
be improved by the single-story and the two-story as
opposed to the whole thing being two stories, so we’re
really dealing with two things.
One would be we really want to improve the view
there, and that could either be done by what you’re
suggesting now, or it could be done by this one story.
Maybe the one-story will not improve the view enough, but
the suggestion you’re making may. Or not if it’s going to
improve it enough, but improve it greatly, so you could put
both things. In other words, I understand the motion simply
to be let’s see what we can do with a one-story/two-story,
making the two-story bigger than it presently is to try to
get to the square footage the Applicant wants.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But also what we’ve heard is if we could expand
the open space, that would be a big help too, and they
should look at that.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I was referring to the use…
CHAIR O'DONNELL: The dog park.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Right, and not to expand it,
but to allocate potentially a different use that the
residents would prefer.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Yes, all right. So will the
maker of the motion incorporate those two suggestions?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: And will the seconder?
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yes.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: All right, I’m going to call,
unless there’s further.
VICE CHAIR KANE: There is.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Okay, go right ahead.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I feel like we’re going down a
very dangerous path. I’m very concerned about the precedent
of ignoring so much passion in the Town Code, in the
General Plan, Commercial Design Guidelines, only to hit a
consistency to what? I don’t even know what, but there’s so
much language in here, and there’s so much passion in our
letters, and we’re supposed to be, “Input from surrounding
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
residents is a major consideration during any development,”
and we’re playing numbers games, and we’ve been playing
numbers from 96,000 to 84,000 to 72,000. I’m really
distressed, and I’m sure that’s not clear, but I’d like to
make it clear that we are ignoring provisions we have to
protect and preserve the Town, which we are in danger of
giving away, and I’m not going to support the motion unless
we give guidance to further reduce the project and make it
consistent with the guidelines we have, and especially
listening to the neighbors.
Everything we have is similar to what was there.
Preserve and protect. We have 31,000 square feet there. The
initial design was 94,000. I don’t think they read a word.
Then we got it down to 74,000, and we got it down further,
and Council suggested there might be another level. We’re
giving that away, and we’re giving this language away,
which we are going to need again in the future, so that’s
my two cents.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: All right, all those in favor
of the motion, say aye. Commissioner Hanssen, you’re not
voting on it?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I’m voting against.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2018
Item #2, 401-409 Alberto Way
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Okay. So those opposed? So we
have four for, and two opposed. It will be continued to a
date certain. The date is?
JOEL PAULSON: We’d like to add to the motion, if
it’s okay with the maker of the motion and the seconder, to
a date certain of February 28th, if I can read that far.
February 28th, so approximately six weeks. Should the
Applicant choose to not make any changes, that will come
back then. The only other option they would have would be
to pay for additional noticing for a new public hearing,
and so we will make sure they understand those options. But
if it’s okay with the maker and the seconder, to February
28th, and then we would need consensus from the Commission.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Yes.
JOEL PAULSON: So it’s continued to February 28th.
Thank you.
CHAIR O'DONNELL: Thank you.